City of Westminster Council (202428943)

Background

1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord. The resident has cerebral palsy. The landlord’s contractor caused a leak whilst repairing a tap, damaging the resident’s kitchen floor. The landlord has now completed repairs to the floor.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about repairs to the resident’s kitchen floor.
3. We have also considered the associated complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. The landlord made an offer of redress which, in our opinion, resolved errors in its handling of repairs to the resident’s kitchen floor.
5. We have found no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Summary of reasons

6. There were delays in the landlord repairing the resident’s kitchen floor. The landlord has apologised for this and offered compensation in line with our remedies guidance, which sets out our approach to compensation. The landlord issued its complaint responses within its timescales for doing so.

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

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

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.

7. The resident reported that the asbestos contractor who attended his property believed they were scheduled to work on the bathroom rather than the kitchen. He said the contractor did not move the kitchen appliances, despite the landlord assuring the resident that this would happen. The landlord is responsible for ensuring its contractors receive accurate information about the required work and any related arrangements. The landlord should consider reviewing its processes to ensure its contractors are given clear instructions before attending residents’ properties.
8. The landlord’s repairs policy states it will attend repairs that pose an immediate health risk within 24 hours to make the issue safe. On 6 August 2024, the resident reported that his father had tripped and fallen on the temporary floor. On 10 September 2024, the resident reported that he had also tripped and injured himself. The landlord should have attended the property within 24 hours of these reports to assess the temporary floor and ensure it was safe. We have not seen evidence that it did so. This was a failing that will have likely caused the resident considerable distress and inconvenience, particularly as he had a disability and had raised safety concerns about the temporary flooring with the landlord.
9. The landlord advised the resident he could make a personal injury claim to its insurer in relation to his reports that both he and his father had tripped on the temporary floor. We have not investigated this aspect of the resident’s complaint as it is fairer, more reasonable and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused. The courts or liability insurers are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice on the cause of any injury and how long it will last. However, it was reasonable for the landlord to advise the resident of how to make a claim so he could progress this further if he wished. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.
10. The landlord’s repairs policy states it will complete routine repairs within 28 days. The contractor damaged the floor on 5 March 2024. We accept that the landlord had to arrange a specialist contractor to remove the old floor tiles. However, the landlord did not replace the kitchen floor until 24 September 2024, which was almost 6 months beyond its timescale for completing routine repairs. This was unreasonable.
11. Our remedies guidance states that where there are errors by the landlord which adversely affected the resident, £100-£600 compensation may be appropriate. The landlord has apologised for its errors in this case and has offered the resident £400 compensation. This offer is in line with our remedies guidance and is sufficient to recognise the impact of the delays in the landlord repairing his kitchen floor. Therefore, the landlord does not need to do anything further in this regard, as its offer is in line with what we would have awarded had the landlord not already made an offer and it is reasonable redress for this aspect of the resident’s complaint.
12. The resident has told us that the new kitchen floor the landlord installed is not flat. We have no power to investigate complaints which the landlord has not had the chance to put right first. We have not seen evidence that the resident has raised a complaint to the landlord about the new floor. Therefore, we have not investigated this issue. However, given the resident’s disability, we recommend that the landlord arrange an inspection of the resident’s kitchen floor and carry out repairs if necessary.

13. The landlord’s complaint process has 2 stages. This is in line with our Complaint Handling Code (The Code), which sets out our expectations of landlords’ complaint handling practices. Its complaints policy states that at stage 1 it will provide a response in 10 working days. At stage 2 it will provide a response in 20 working days.
14. The landlord provided both its stage 1 and stage 2 complaint responses within the timescales set out in its complaint procedure.
15. Our Code states that landlords must confirm the following in writing to the resident in its stage 1 complaint response: the complaint stage, the complaint definition, the decision on the complaint, the reasons for any decisions made, the details of any remedy offered to put things right, details of any outstanding actions and details of how to escalate the matter to stage 2 if the resident is not satisfied with the landlord’s response.
16. The resident told us he was concerned that the member of the landlord’s staff who signed its stage 1 complaint response had not read it. We have considered these comments but have not seen corroborating evidence, so we cannot confirm what was said. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response meets the requirements set out in our Code. We have therefore found no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

17. The landlord’s records were sufficient for us to be able to investigate this complaint.

Communication

18. The landlord may wish to consider reviewing its processes to ensure its contractors receive clear instructions about the work required and any pre-agreed arrangements.