Our Business Plan 2026-27 consultation is now open. 

Take part in the consultation

City of Westminster Council (202433464)

Back to Top

 

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202433464

Westminster City Council

16 July 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. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a blocked downpipe which was causing water ingress into his property.

Background

  1. The resident is the leaseholder of a one bedroom flat in a building of similar flats. The landlord is the freeholder.
  2. On 14 November 2023 the resident reported that the downpipe outside his flat was blocked and overflowing. The downpipe could only be accessed via another property. On 5 December 2023 the landlord’s contractor recommended that scaffolding be installed to enable proper inspection of the downpipe. The landlord raised this as a job on 18 December 2023. The resident contacted the landlord several times after this date to ask when the issue would be resolved as it was causing water ingress into his kitchen.
  3. On 22 February 2024 the resident raised a complaint. He said when it rained, water overflowed from the top of the downpipe, ran down the outside wall and into his kitchen. He said his health had been adversely affected by the damp, mould and fungus that the water ingress had caused. He said he was unable to ventilate the kitchen as the water ingress meant he couldn’t open the window or use the electric extractor fan. He requested that the landlord resolve the downpipe blockage and remove the mould and fungus.
  4. In its stage 1 response on 29 February 2024 the landlord apologised for the delay in erecting scaffolding to enable proper inspection of the downpipe. It said it had now been erected on 27 February 2024 and the drainage contractors had been instructed to start work. It said that Its Mould and Condensation team would assess the mould and arrange any necessary action. It said any internal decorative damage resulting from the leak could be claimed through its buildings insurance. It awarded £120 compensation, comprised of £60 for the delay in progressing the works to address the leak and £60 for the inconvenience caused.
  5. The resident escalated his complaint on 8 March 2024 as the issue was still ongoing. The repair was completed by 2 April 2024, although the scaffolding was still present for a few weeks afterwards. In its stage 2 response on 9 May 2024, the landlord awarded £50 for the delay in providing a stage 2 response. It said the repair had now been completed and apologised for the delay. It awarded an additional £400 for the distress and inconvenience the further delay had caused. It also provided the policy number for the resident to make a claim on its building insurance.

Events after the internal complaints process.

  1. On 28 October 2024, whilst the insurer’s contractor was carrying out the internal repairs, they identified an unsupported brick wall in the flat above the resident’s property and recommended an urgent structural survey be carried out.
  2. The resident referred his complaint to the Ombudsman on 1 December 2024 as he was unhappy with amount of compensation awarded, and believed the landlord should take into account the stress caused by the further issues with the structure of the building along with his recent diagnosis of asthma which he believed was caused by the earlier damp and mould. He also wanted the landlord to arrange an urgent inspection of the property’s structure. In an update on 3 April 2025, he confirmed that he had raised a new stage 1 complaint to the landlord about the structural issue.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation.

  1. The resident has referred to the landlord’s actions impacting on his health. Although we would give consideration to any distress and inconvenience the resident may have experienced as a result of any errors by the landlord, it is outside the Ombudsman’s role to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This is because we cannot establish whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s actions and/or inaction and the residents health. This would be more appropriately dealt with as a personal injury claim through the courts or the landlord’s liability insurer. This is in line with paragraph 42(f) of the Scheme which states:
  2. ‘The Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable, or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal or procedure.’
  3. The resident has advised the Ombudsman of the discovery on 28 October 2024 of an unsupported wall in the flat above him and the impact this had had on him. As this is a new issue that occurred after the end of the landlord’s ICP, it would need to complete the landlord’s ICP before the resident could refer it to the Ombudsman for possible investigation as a new complaint . This is in line with paragraph 42 (a) of the Scheme, which states:
  4. ‘The Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint-handling failure and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale.’
  5. If the resident is unhappy with the landlord’s handling of this new complaint, they can refer the complaint to the Ombudsman and will be issued with a new case reference number.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a blocked downpipe which was causing water ingress into his property.

  1. The landlord’s Leaseholder Handbook confirms that the landlord is responsible for clearing blockages or repairing leaks to the rainwater pipes and gutters. Therefore, it was appropriate that the landlord arranged to carry out repairs. The leaseholder handbook does not specify repair timeframes for leaseholders.
  2. When the resident reported the blockage on 14 November 2023 the landlord took appropriate steps to inspect the downpipe that day. However, there were access problems due to the area only being accessible via another resident’s property. The records do not confirm what other visits were made in November or December 2023. However, the landlord has confirmed that on 5 December 2023, its contractor recommended that scaffolding be erected to properly inspect the downpipe. Its records show that this was raised as a job on 18 December 2023 with a due date for completion of 25 January 2024.
  3. Therefore, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have erected the scaffolding by that date and kept the resident updated of any delays. However, the landlord failed to do so which meant that the resident had to contact the landlord’s for updates. This resulted in the resident raising a formal complaint on 22 February 2024. The scaffolding was eventually erected on 27 February 2024. Although the landlord appropriately apologised for this delay in its stage 1 response on 29 February 2024, it is not clear from the records or the landlord’s complaint response why this delay occurred or why the resident was not updated.
  4. Once the scaffolding was erected it would have been appropriate for the landlord’s contractor to have carried out the required work as soon as possible and to have kept the resident updated of any delays. Again, it failed to do so. This resulted in the resident having to contact the landlord himself for updates and escalating his complaint on 8 March 2024. The water ingress into his home continued throughout this time period, which the resident understandably found very distressing. Particularly as he was having to clean daily in attempt to stop mould from spreading.
  5. The landlord’s decision to refer the resident to its insurer for the internal damage caused by the water ingress was reasonable and in line with its leaseholder handbook and is accepted practice for such cases. Although the landlord was not obliged to do so, (as it would normally be something that would be covered by insurance) it also carried out a mould wash of the resident’s kitchen on 21 March 2024.The Ombudsman considers this to be fair and appropriate under the circumstances.
  6. The landlord’s complaints policy states that it aims to respond to stage 1 responses within 10 working days and stage 2 responses within 20 working days. The landlord issued its stage 1 response within that time frame. However, there was a delay of approximately 1 month in issuing its stage 2 response. The landlord took appropriate steps to apologise for this delay in its stage 2 response and awarded £50 compensation for it. The Ombudsman considers this to be appropriate as it is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance which suggest compensation of £50-100 for instances of service failure which might include delays in getting matters resolved.
  7. In its complaint responses the landlord took appropriate steps to apologise for the delays in completing the repairs and awarded total compensation of £520 for the delays and the impact on the resident. The impact included distress and inconvenience caused by both the delay in completing the repair and having to constantly chase the landlord for updates. Although this was undoubtedly stressful for the resident the Ombudsman considers £520 compensation to be reasonable redress for the failings identified. This is because it is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, which suggest amounts of between £100-600 for cases of maladministration, where there is a failure which adversely affected the resident.
  8. To conclude, the Ombudsman has identified failings in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports that a blocked downpipe was causing water to enter his home. However, the Ombudsman considers the £570 total compensation for the delays in carrying out the repairs and delays in responding to the stage 2 complaint to be reasonable redress for the failings identified.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was reasonable redress in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a blocked downpipe which was causing water ingress into his property.