City of Westminster Council (202500735)

Decision
Case ID	202500735
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	City of Westminster Council
Landlord type	Local Authority / ALMO or TMO
Occupancy	Secure Tenancy
Date	16 December 2025

Background

The resident complained to the landlord about its handling of her report about water ingress into the property, a 2 bedroom first floor flat. The landlord is not the freeholder. The freehold is owned by a private company. The freeholder has instructed a managing agent to manage the properties in the building, including maintenance and repair issues. The managing agent’s actions will be referred to as the freeholder’s in this report.
The landlord is the leaseholder of the property. The Tenant Management Organisation (TMO) manages the property on behalf of the landlord. The TMO’s actions will be referred to as the landlord’s in this report.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of water ingress into the property.
We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

The landlord has made an offer of reasonable redress to the resident which satisfactorily resolve the failings in respect of its handling of her reports of water ingress into the property.
The landlord has made an offer of reasonable redress to the resident which satisfactorily resolves the failings in its complaint handling.

Summary of reasons

Overall the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of water ingress into the property was not satisfactory. This is because the landlord did not take adequate or proactive action to pursue the freeholder to perform the necessary repairs within a reasonable period of time. However the landlord has since identified and acknowledge its failings and offered proportionate redress in recognition of this. This includes a repair to remedy the water ingress.
The landlord provided appropriate compensation in recognition that it delayed in responding to the complaint.

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 recommendations
Within the landlord’s stage 2 response it confirmed that it would “redecorate once the necessary repairs had been completed”. As the resident has confirmed that the source of water ingress has been remedied, the landlord should contact her to arrange for the make good works to be completed. The make good works should be completed within a reasonable period of time.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
19 February 2024	The resident made a complaint to the landlord. In summary she said: Bedroom 2 had experienced water ingress since June 2023. Damp and mould had developed as a result. Despite reporting the problem to the landlord and freeholder the problem had not been resolved. The freeholder had promised to complete a dye test to trace the leak however this had not happened. Her son had autism and refused to sleep in bedroom 2. She had bronchiectasis and was concerned about the impact of the problem on her condition.
21 March 2024	The landlord provided its stage 1 response. In summary it said: The responsibility to resolve the leak was with the freeholder. It had written to the freeholder to request that it complete a dye test and provide a plan to address the repair issues in the property. If the freeholder did not respond it would undertake the necessary tests and repairs and recover the costs from the freeholder. It “upheld” the complaint due to the length of time it had taken to resolve the repair and because the matter was still outstanding. It acknowledged that this was unacceptable “especially with the vulnerabilities” in the household. It therefore apologised and offered £670 compensation comprising: a) £300 for delay in investigating the leak. b) £250 for distress and inconvenience. c) £100 for time, trouble and poor communication. d) £20 for the late complaint response.
15 March 2025	The resident requested to escalate the complaint. In summary she said: Repairs to address the water ingress into bedroom 2 had not been completed. It was unacceptable that the landlord had not taken action against the freeholder for lack of action to address the problem. Bedroom 2 was in a poor condition and could not be safely used by her son. She provided photos to demonstrate.
19 May 2025	The landlord apologised for the delay in acknowledging the resident’s escalation request. It confirmed that a response would be provided within 20 working days.
9 July 2025	The landlord provided its stage 2 response. In summary it said: While it was not the freeholder of the building it had a responsibility to ensure that the property was “safe and well maintained”. It was sorry that despite various efforts to engage and influence the freeholder to identify and remedy the root cause of the water ingress no meaningful action or resolution had been achieved. It acknowledged that this would have impacted on the health issues of the resident and her son. It had taken the following action since the stage 1 response: a) Liaised with the freeholder to arrange inspections. b) Shared a landlord led stock condition survey report with the freeholder setting out the issues identified with the property. c) Arranged for an independent surveyor to identify the cause of the leak. It could have considered enforcement action against the freeholder at an earlier date. It had offered the resident temporary accommodation. The resident had declined as it was not appropriate for her son. It had also provided the resident with information on a housing transfer. It had only recently carried out mould washes in the property. This should have been done at a much earlier time. It should have provided the resident with a dehumidifier to help dry out the affected areas to help reduce the risk of damp and mould. It was sorry for the delay in escalating the complaint. This was as a result of a change in IT system. To address the complaint it would carry out the following actions: a) Complete a mould wash and a deep clean to the affected areas in the property. b) Put the freeholder on notice regarding the independent surveyor’s report. If the necessary works were not completed within the stipulated timescales it would explore “taking alternative action in line with the lease”. c) Provide the resident with a point of contact. d) Redecorate once the necessary repairs had been completed. If the resident believed that it had been negligent in its actions which had resulted in loss or damage to her personal belongings she could submit a claim to its insurers. It would like to offer an additional £1,450 compensation at stage 2 comprising: a) £200 for complaint handling. b) £250 for missing an opportunity to review the support arrangements it had originally offered the resident. c) £1,000 for the “significant” impact on the resident and her son.
Referral to the Ombudsman	As the resident was not happy with the landlord’s response to the complaint she referred the matter to us. She explained that she was concerned regarding the length of time the problem had been ongoing and make good works were outstanding.

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	The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of water ingress into the property
Finding	Reasonable redress

The lease agreement between the landlord and freeholder sets out that the freeholder is responsible for maintaining and keeping in good repair the structure of the building including the foundations, structural walls and the roof. While the landlord is not responsible for repairing the building it has an obligation to ensure that the freeholder is meeting its repairing obligations.
We have not been provided with evidence detailing the resident’s first contact in June 2023 reporting water ingress to the landlord or the freeholder. We note that the landlord however does not dispute that the resident reported the problem in June 2023. The landlord has confirmed that it does not hold any evidence to “establish the timeline or nature of any actions taken” in response to the report. This is unsatisfactory as a landlord should keep appropriate records in order to demonstrate how it is meeting its obligations.
During the period November 2023 to September 2024, we can see that the landlord did contact the freeholder on multiple occasions regarding water ingress into the property. This was appropriate to pursue a resolution and outcome. The landlord requested that the freeholder take urgent action to investigate and remedy the problem. It also shared a copy of the stock condition survey it had completed on the property in April 2024 to highlight the areas of concern.
Despite the landlord’s intervention the evidence shows that the freeholder was not proactive in pursuing a remedy to resolve the problem. While the freeholder did attend the property and complete some repairs the evidence shows its approach was irregular and inconsistent and did not result in the problem being resolved.
Where a landlord experiences difficulties with a freeholder in effecting a repair it should be clear at what point it would consider legal enforcement of the contract or lease terms. The evidence shows that in September 2024 the landlord had internal discussions about the freeholder’s response to address the problem and the potential need for “formal action”. It set out that it was making this decision as the freeholder was not actively engaging with the repairs or demonstrating urgency to resolve the problem. It was appropriate that the landlord was considering formal action as it had given the freeholder a reasonable opportunity to resolve the issue. As part of those discussions the landlord confirmed that it would inspect the property.
The landlord inspected the property in June 2025. This was approximately 9 months after the landlord made the decision to inspect. This is a significantly protracted period of time. The records do not demonstrate why the inspection was delayed, or what action it was otherwise taking. This is a failing and demonstrates a lack of oversight and management by the landlord in pursuing an outcome. The inspection confirmed that the property had a “significant damp issue” which was due to water saturating the brickwork near to the property.
During the period September 2024 to June 2025 we cannot see that the landlord further explored formal action against the freeholder or pursued it for a resolution to the water ingress. This is unsatisfactory. The landlord’s approach was therefore not clear, confident or consistent in ensuring that the freeholder was meeting its obligations or that it was meeting its own obligations to the resident.
The landlord has confirmed that in response to the inspection it completed repairs to the private patio adjacent to and above the property to remedy drainage issues in October 2025. This was reasonable as the freeholder had not arranged for the repairs to be completed itself. It was also appropriate as it was a commitment that the landlord made to resolve the complaint. The resident has confirmed to us that the recent repairs appear to have resolved the water ingress however the landlord has not been in touch regarding making good the damage caused in the property.
While it is positive that the necessary repairs have been completed, overall we are not satisfied with the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of water ingress. This is because the landlord’s approach resulted in the problem remaining unresolved for a prolonged period of time. When it became clear that the freeholder was not actively engaged it should have taken a more robust approach in pursuing a resolution for the resident. The evidence does not demonstrate that it did so. This will have caused the resident significant inconvenience and distress.
Where there are failings by a landlord we will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord has put things right. In considering this we take into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles; to be fair and to put things right.
In responding to the complaint the landlord acted fairly in acknowledging there had been an unacceptable delay in providing a solution to address the water ingress. The landlord sought to put things right by apologising for its failings, undertaking the works to address the water ingress and by offering compensation. These actions were appropriate.
We have considered the landlord’s offer of compensation for its handling of the resident’s reports of water ingress, which totalled £1,900. The offer was in line with the landlord’s compensation policy for cases where a resident has experienced “severe impact”. This demonstrated that the landlord recognised the severity of its failings and the impact on the resident. The sum offered was also within the range of financial redress recommended in our Remedies Guidance for failings which have had a significant impact on a resident.
While the repair to resolve the water ingress was outstanding we can see that the landlord offered the resident temporary accommodation in a hotel in July 2024. Whilst the resident did not accept this offer, it was appropriate in light of the vulnerabilities and health conditions which the resident had disclosed to it.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Reasonable redress

The chronology of the complaint shows that the landlord’s handling of the complaint was unsatisfactory. Both the landlord’s stage 1 and stage 2 responses were provided outside of the 10 (stage 1) and 20 (stage 2) working days prescribed by the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code; a delay of approximately 14 days at stage 1 and 59 days at stage 2. This will have resulted in uncertainty, inconvenience and distress to the resident in addition to feeling that her concerns were not being taken seriously. It was also unacceptable as the purpose of a formal complaint procedure is to address complaints at the earliest stage enabling potential issues to be identified and addressed.
The landlord acknowledged its poor complaint handling and offered a total of £220 compensation. This was appropriate in recognition of the length of time the responses were outstanding.
In responding to the complaint the landlord took into account the impact of its actions and inactions on the resident and her household in respect of their personal circumstances. This was appropriate as it allowed the landlord to provide a remedy which recognised the overall distress and inconvenience caused by its service failures.
As part of its complaint response the landlord signposted the resident to its insurers. This was reasonable. This is because it recognised that the resident’s personal belongings could have been damaged as a result of the water ingress which was a repair which she was not responsible for.

Learning

The landlord should consider reviewing the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on Landlords’ engagement with private freeholders and managing agents dated March 2022. The report provides recommendations on actions and best practices a landlord can take to ensure it meets its obligations where they have to rely on a third party.
In this case there were instances of poor record keeping by the TMO on the landlord’s behalf. The landlord should ensure that it is has mechanisms in place to review the record keeping practices of its TMOs to ensure that appropriate records are kept and maintained. The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on Knowledge Information Management provides recommendations on effective data and information management a landlord can take to support its service delivery.