City of Westminster Council (202422404)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202422404

City of Westminster Council

15 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of leaks, damp, and mould in the property.
The Ombudsman will also consider the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. The property is a 3-bedroom flat. The landlord is a local authority.
The resident informed the landlord that she and other members of the household have long term health issues which the landlord recorded as vulnerabilities.
The resident reported a problem with leaks coming through the ceiling on 20 December 2023. She said the leaks were affecting the electrics in her property and creating issues with damp and mould. She raised a further reports of leaks on 9 May 2024.
The resident raised her stage 1 complaint on 20 May 2024. She said her and her family’s health was being impacted by damp and mould in the property. She said the leak was dangerous because it was affecting the electrics. She asked for both issues to be resolved.
The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 29 May 2024. It said it had been unable to access the properties above her to find the origin of the leak. It said it had raised works to trace the leak and make the electrics safe on 28 May 2024. It did not uphold the complaint as it had acted within its timeframes and any delays were outside its control.
The resident escalated the complaint to stage 2 on 29 May 2024. She said the landlord’s complaint response was not helpful. She said she had been moved into a temporary property as a result of the leak but was not told what would happen next. She wanted the leak, damp and mould resolved.
The residents request to escalate her complaint was acknowledged by the landlord on 22 July 2024. It apologised for the delay in processing the request. The resident provided an updated request which said that the house was no longer habitable due to the ongoing problems and the impact on her and her family’s health.
The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 30 August 2024. It apologised for the delay in responding to the complaint. It said it had repaired the leak from the property above on 6 June 2024, after completing a mould wash in the property on 31 May 2024. It apologised for delays in fixing the lights. It said it would provide new flooring in the property as a gesture of goodwill. It gave information of how to make a claim through insurance for the impact on the resident’s health. It acknowledged failures in its response and offered compensation of £360 for delays and inconvenience she experienced.
The resident escalated her complaint to the Service on 9 September 2024. She said the issue remained unresolved for too long and had a significant impact on the health of everyone in the household. She said the compensation offered was too low. In conversation with the Service, the resident mentioned current issues with damp and mould, though it is unclear whether these are connected to the issues raised in her complaint.

Assessment and findings

Scope

The resident said that the landlord’s handling of the leak, damp and mould impacted her and her family’s health. The Ombudsman sympathises with the resident and her family. It is understandable that she has concerns about the impact of her living conditions on her health. It is important to explain that this Service cannot establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action have had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health. The resident could seek independent advice regarding this aspect or consider a claim through the landlord’s liability insurance or the courts. While we cannot determine impact on health, we will give consideration to the general impact of the living conditions on the resident and consider what the landlord did when it was informed of health concerns.
The resident said she had experienced problems with leaks in the property since 2007. However, we encourage residents to raise complaints in a timely manner, while the issues are live. This is because the quality and availability of any evidence that may have existed at the time may not be present now. The focus of this investigation will therefore relate to the reports of leaks made at the time of the complaint.

The landlord’s response to reports of leaks, damp and mould in the property

In the landlord’s Tenant Handbook, it sets out its repair responsibilities. It says:
1. it is responsible for the repair of water pipes, electrical wiring and any major plastering work
2. it will let residents know the target time for completion when a repair is reported and will inform them of any delays. Its timescales for completion range from 24 hours for immediate priority jobs up to 28 days for non-urgent works
3. it identifies leakage of water from plumbing as a job that would fall under the immediate category. It identifies a partial loss of electrical power as urgent
In the landlord’s Vulnerable Resident’s & Reasonable Adjustments Policy, it says:
1. it will use all available information it has to identify vulnerable residents
2. it will ask if it should do anything differently when providing them with a service so it can explore the individual needs of its residents
3. it will discuss requirements with residents on a case-by-case basis to see what is reasonable in the circumstances
4. it recognises that vulnerable residents may be at greater risk when repair is needed and that it will ask about any special arrangements needed when a repair is reported
5. it identifies a tenant with asthma reporting mould and damp as an example of increased risk
6. it will stay in regular contact with vulnerable residents until the repair is completed
The resident reported a leak coming from the flat above on 20 December 2023. She said her electrics were being affected by the leak.
The landlord attended the property on 20 December 2023 in response to the repair order. This was appropriate and showed that it was adhering to the timescale set out in its policy. However, it was unable to identify the source of the leak as it could not access neighbouring properties. It made requests for access and gained it on 27 December 2023. This delay was reasonable in the circumstances, as it was outside its control.
Further works were required on a neighbouring property to stop the leak. During this period, the resident was moved to temporary accommodation for 2 weeks. This was appropriate and showed that the landlord prioritised the safety of the resident while it resolved the problem. Follow on repairs to water damaged areas were completed on 23 January 2024. The landlord’s response at this stage was reasonable and in line with its policy.
The resident reported further leaks from the bathroom ceiling and storage room on 3 May 2024. She made another report on 6 May 2024 following a leak from the property above affecting her electrics, resulting in a call out from the fire service. The fire service isolated her electricity for safety. The landlord attended the same day to try and gain access to the property above but was unable to do so. It made the electrical fittings that were affected by the leak safe, which included her kitchen smoke alarm and hallway light.
The resident called the landlord on 9 May 2024 requesting an update on the repair of leaks in the property as they were ongoing. She said the lights were still isolated. The landlord’s call log shows that it spoke to the neighbour whose property was the suspected source of the leak to try and arrange a visit from a plumber. While the delay was outside of its control, there is no evidence that the landlord offered appropriate support to the resident regarding the electrical issues, which was not appropriate.
Evidence provided by the landlord shows that it scheduled a visit to the neighbouring property on 17 May 2024 and that it would visit the resident at the same time to assess whether the leak was from the neighbouring property. This was proactive and showed that it was trying to resolve the issue. However, it was unreasonable that it had taken so long to act on an issue it considered urgent, even with access difficulties. It could have communicated all delays clearly to the resident in this period to show it was prioritising the repair.
The resident raised her formal complaint on 20 May 2024. She said:
1. she had been reporting issues with new leaks at the property since December 2023 and that leaks had been an ongoing problem since her tenancy started in 2007
2. the works completed in December 2023 were ineffective as the leak had returned
3. the leak causing damage to electrics in the property was a threat to the safety of her family
4. her family’s health was being affected by mould in the property and two of her children had asthma and used inhalers
5. she wanted the leak, damp and mould resolved
The landlord logged the complaint with an updated summary of the repair issues on 20 May 2024. It noted that the health of the resident and her family was being affected, which was appropriate and in line with its policies. However, there is no evidence that it took any action in response to these health concerns once it had logged them.
The landlord scheduled a damp and mould survey on 28 May 2024. During the survey it reported:
1. that leaks were occurring in multiple places around the property
2. that the leaks and their impact on the electrics made the property unsafe and uninhabitable
3. that it suggested the resident should be temporarily moved into alternative accommodation to allow safe completion of repairs
4. that it had identified the source of the leak in a neighbouring property above
5. that there were high levels of moisture and mould throughout the property
The landlord raised an emergency job to address the leak and booked a mould wash, which was proactive. It moved the resident into a temporary property on 28 May 2024 as the electrics were not safe which showed that it took the safety of the resident and her family seriously.
The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 29 May 2024. It gave a timeline of events related to leaks, damp and mould in the property starting from 16 May 2023. It said:
1. it had raised works to trace the leak and make safe the electrics in the property following its damp and mould survey
2. it was not upholding the complaint as it found the works to resolve problems with mould were completed within a reasonable timeframe
3. it acknowledged that the leak remained unresolved but was satisfied it had made every effort to complete the repair
4. it said it was delayed by issues with access to neighbouring properties which was outside of its control
It was not appropriate for the landlord to say issues with mould in the property had been resolved. The report it had issued following its damp and mould survey on the same day had made clear that damp and mould was still present in the property. It had scheduled a mould wash which showed it was taking steps to address the problem, but it was not reasonable to say the issue was resolved. The resident was not given the reassurance that the landlord would take steps to ensure the problem did not return.
It was reasonable in the circumstances for the landlord to explain the cause of the delay in repairing the leak. It was appropriate that it gave a specific date that the property would be made safe and the leak would be traced. This demonstrated an intention to resolve the issue as quickly as possible.
The resident requested an escalation to stage 2 on 29 May 2024. She said the stage 1 response had not been beneficial. She said:
1. repeated visits to complete works without addressing the main issue of leaks were a source of frustration
2. she had been told by visiting contractors on previous occasions that works could not be completed as not enough time had been allocated
3. she and her family were temporarily moved into a hotel the previous night (28 May 2024) and had not been told what would be happening next
Following the escalation, there is evidence that the landlord contacted its contractors on multiple occasions between 29 May 2024 and 6 June 2024 to organise completion of the works. Emails show that further delays were caused by access issues and contact with the owner of the neighbouring property.
When providing evidence to the Service, the landlord said it had no record of the resident being moved into temporary accommodation on 28 May 2024, despite stating this had happened in its stage 2 response. Internal emails from later in the complaints process showed the landlord was confused due to there being no record of the action it took. This was not appropriate and demonstrated a lack of oversight. It failed to show it was in control of the situation following the survey. The confusion meant it missed the chance to provide the resident with clear updates on the repairs process.
The resident contacted the landlord on 18 June 2024 to ask what was happening with her lights. She said the kitchen and corridor lights were still not working following the leak. The landlord attended on 22 June 2024 to reinstate the lights. It gave no reason for the delay in reinstating the lights.
The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 7 August 2024. It said:
1. it had confirmed the source of the leak was fully repaired on 6 June 2024 and that its contractors would complete all remaining electrical works by 17 September 2024
2. it apologised for the delay in reinstating the lights
3. it acknowledged there were remedial works required in the property and recognised the resident had experienced difficulty with the ongoing leaks
4. it said it would provide and install laminate flooring in the property as a gesture of goodwill
5. it acknowledged the resident’s concerns about the impact of the repairs on her family’s health and said it was sorry to hear this but that it could not consider this as part of the complaints process
6. it gave information on how to pursue a claim regarding the impact on her health through its public liability insurance
7. it apologised that her concerns were not adequately addressed in its stage 1 response and that she had to pursue the complaint further
8. it was offering compensation of £360, made up of:
  1. £250 for the inconvenience caused by the delay in finding and repairing the leak, which it said also considered the resident’s vulnerabilities
  2. £50 for the delay in reinstating her lights
  3. £60 for delays in complaint handling which will be addressed later in this report
It was appropriate for the landlord to apologise for the delays the resident had faced while it repaired the leaks in the property. It completed the repair of the leak and set out a reasonable schedule of some remedial works which gave the resident clarity on what she could expect to be done in the property. It could have been clearer with the resident about how it was progressing with the repair between its formal complaint responses.
However, the landlord’s failure to provide a clear explanation for delays in reinstating lights at the property was not appropriate. While it is right that the landlord isolated electricity until it could confirm the leak was resolved, it said the leak was repaired on 6 June 2024. It should not have taken the resident prompting the landlord on 18 June before her lights were reinstated and demonstrates that the landlord had poor oversight of the works. In addition, it is unreasonable that remaining electrical works were not scheduled to be completed until a month later. The resident was inconvenienced unnecessarily.
The landlord’s recognition of the impact on the resident as a vulnerable person in its award of compensation did not go far enough. It should not have taken until after the completion of the repair before it acknowledged that things would be more difficult for the resident. There is no evidence that it spoke to the resident at any point during the complaint and repair period about adjustments it could make to its service to support her. It failed to follow its policy which left the resident and her family in a vulnerable position without the offer of support.
While it was reasonable for the landlord to explain its limitations in investigating the impact of the repairs on the resident’s health, its response to her concerns could have gone further. There is no evidence that the landlord considered ways in which it could offer support to the resident with her concerns. It also failed to demonstrate any change in the urgency of its response once it knew about the potential impact on the health of the resident and her family. It failed to follow its policy and missed the opportunity to offer the resident reassurance with her concerns.
In summary, the landlord did some things well but could have gone further. It explained the reasons for delays in resolving the leak and completing remedial works but did not communicate its progress regularly as its policy says it will. It failed to consider adjustments for the resident’s vulnerabilities and did not respond effectively to her concerns about the impact on her family’s health. It did not have adequate oversight of the repair work throughout the complaints process which had an impact on its ability to provide the resident with clear information. For the reasons outlined above, a finding of maladministration has been made.
In considering compensation, an additional amount of £200 is appropriate and has been considered with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance in mind. This is made up of:
1. £150 for the impact of its failure to consider support and adjustments for the resident’s vulnerabilities
2. £50 for the impact of the length of time the resident went without lights in her property and the landlord’s lack of explanation for the delay

The landlord’s complaint handling

In the landlord’s Complaints Policy, it says complaints will be acknowledged within 5 working days. It says any reasons for delay to its formal responses will be sent in a holding response along with a date that residents should expect a full response. It says any extension of a response deadline will be no more than 20 days at stage 2 and will only be with good reason clearly explained to the resident.
The landlord acknowledged the stage 1 complaint on 20 May 2024, the day it was raised. It provided its stage 1 response on 29 May 2024 within 10 working days as its policy says it will. This was appropriate and showed that it considered the importance of responding promptly to the resident.
The resident requested that her complaint was escalated to stage 2 on the same day, 29 May 2024. However, the landlord did not provide its acknowledgment of this escalation request until 22 July 2024. This was not appropriate. It provided an apology in its acknowledgment and explained that its complaints team had introduced a new customer record system. The switch to the new system had meant its response time to some complaints had been impacted. It apologised for any inconvenience this caused. It said it would respond to the complaint by 2 August 2024 which was in line with its policy.
The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 30 August 2024, which was not appropriate. It failed to meet its deadline for response which meant that a process which had already been substantially delayed was drawn out further. It also failed to provide the resident with any explanation for this delay prior to issuing its formal stage 2 response. This meant the resident was left without a clear understanding of whether her complaint was being taken seriously and a lack of answers to her concerns.
In the stage 2 response, the landlord apologised for the delay and acknowledged that it was a service failure to have not kept to its timescales or updated the resident with reasons for this. It was appropriate for it to apologise and showed that it was learning from the failing.
It offered compensation of £60 related to the complaint handling. This was made up of:
1. £20 for the delay in acknowledging the escalation request
2. £40 for the 2 month delay in providing its stage 2 response and its failure to update the resident with reasons for the delay
Given that there had already been an adverse impact on the resident due to the delays faced with the repair, the additional inconvenience caused by poor complaint handling warranted a higher level of compensation. The resident was put to avoidable time and trouble as the landlord failed to follow its timelines even after it had apologised in its delayed stage 2 acknowledgment. For these reasons a finding of service failure has been made.
In considering compensation, an additional £40 should be paid to reflect the cumulative impact of its failings during the complaint handling process. This brings the total compensation for complaint handling to £100. This amount has been considered in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of leaks, damp, and mould in the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must provide evidence that it has:
1. written to the resident to apologise for the failings identified in this report
2. paid compensation to the resident of £600 inclusive of the amounts already offered, made up of:
  1. £250 already offered for inconvenience caused by delays in repairing the leak
  2. £50 already offered for delays in repairing the lights
  3. £50 for the impact of the length of time the resident went without lights in her property and the landlord’s lack of explanation for the delay
  4. £150 for the impact of its failure to offer additional support to a vulnerable resident throughout the process
  5. £100 for the cumulative impact on the resident of its failures in complaint handling

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord reviews the effectiveness of its application of policies relating to the support of vulnerable residents.
It is recommended that the landlord contacts the resident within 4 weeks to discuss any ongoing issues with damp and mould at the property. If required, it should conduct an inspection and set out a schedule of works required to resolve the issue.