City of Westminster Council (202518190)

Background

1. The resident lives in a ground floor flat. She complained to the landlord about a leak from the flat above, which caused damage to her property.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Leak and associated repairs.
   2. Complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found:
   1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s leak and associated repairs.
   2. No maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s leak and associated repairs

4. The landlord did not complete repairs in line with its policy timescales. It apologised for its delay and offered compensation in its stage 1 and 2 responses. Its offer was not proportionate to the failings we identified.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

5. The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint in line with its complaints policy timescale.

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.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

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.

What we did not investigate

6. The resident said the leak, and the landlord’s handling of it, impacted her health. It would be fairer, more reasonable and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused. The courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any injury and how long it will last. We’ve not investigated this further. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.
7. Under our Scheme, we may not investigate complaints which were not referred to the landlord as a complaint within a reasonable time, which is normally 12 months. The resident complained about a previous leak, which happened in July 2021, and said the landlord completed repairs in February 2023. She raised a formal complaint to the landlord in November 2024. We have not seen evidence the resident was prevented from making a complaint sooner. For this reason, we have not investigated her complaint about the leak from July 2021.
8. The resident is unhappy with the condition of the property after she returned from temporary accommodation in July 2025. She also experienced a new leak in September 2025 after this complaint finished the landlord’s complaints procedure in February 2025. If she is unhappy with the landlord’s handling of this, she can make a new complaint and escalate it to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaints procedure if she is not satisfied. If she remains unhappy with its final response, she can ask us to investigate further.

What we did investigate

9. This investigation focuses on the leak the resident reported to the landlord in October 2024 up to its final complaint response in February 2025. Any reference to events before or after is for context and did not form part of our assessment.
10. The resident reported a leak from her ceiling on 21 October 2024. In line with its repairs policy timescale, the landlord attended the same day to make the electrics safe and attempted to access the flat above to investigate the source of the leak. It experienced delays due to access issues with the flat above.
11. It is unclear when the landlord resolved the leak. It told us it resolved it on 31 October 2024, but it completed a dye test on this date to identify the source. It told the resident the test found the leak was not from any accessible area in the above flat. It said its further attendance on 1 November 2024 suggested the leak may be from a water pipe in the building. The resident complained in November 2024 because the leak worsened and she was unhappy with the landlord’s delay resolving it.
12. The landlord told us it decided to rehouse the resident after its inspection on 8 November 2024. Its report said it found 12 issues and included 12 pictures but did not explain what the issues were or its recommendations. The landlord’s decant policy says it completes a checklist detailing the work to be completed with reasons why it cannot be done with the resident there. The landlord did not provide a copy of this to us.
13. The resident reported an issue with her electrics on 12 November 2024, and reported her ceiling was almost collapsing on 13 November 2024. The landlord attended both reports the same day in line with its repairs policy. It found the ceiling was safe, made the electrics safe and provided a temporary bathroom light. The resident later reported the leak affected her bathroom lighting and extractor fan. The landlord did not attend to this report within its repairs policy timescale because of an administrative error.
14. On 4 December 2024 the resident reported another leak from her bathroom stopcock. In line with its repairs policy timescale, the landlord attended on 6 December 2024 and resolved the leak. The landlord told us it did not start any remedial work following the October 2024 leak before the December 2024 leak because the property needed to dry out. It raised an order for dehumidifiers on 4 December 2024, which were delivered on 27 January 2025. In its stage 2 response, it accepted this delayed work starting. It told the resident it assessed her property on 30 January 2025. The landlord told us it could not find its report from its inspection from 30 January 2025.
15. The landlord inspected the property again in March 2025 but told us it could not find its inspection report. It started work in April 2025 and said it completed plastering, flooring, tiling and electrical work between April and August 2025. The resident moved back into her property in July 2025. It is unclear which repairs it completed and what remained outstanding at this point.
16. The landlord said it completed repairs in line with its February 2025 quotation, which covered extensive work to the resident’s hallway, kitchen, bedroom and bathroom. Its decant policy says, before returning to the property, the resident would inspect the home, and it would agree completion of any snagging issues at this inspection. The landlord did not provide a copy of this inspection or evidence of how it decided it was safe for the resident to return or if any rooms were unhabitable.
17. Overall, the landlord’s handling of the resident’s leak and repairs was poor. It did not act with urgency to complete the repairs in line with its repairs policy timescale, which says it aims to complete urgent repairs within 7 days and non urgent repairs within 28 days. It explained there were access issues initially and difficulties finding the source of the leak. In its stage 2 response, it accepted its delay delivering dehumidifiers delayed the repair work. It told us it could have completed an asbestos check earlier to prevent further delays. At the time of its stage 2 response, the resident had been staying in a hotel for nearly 3 months, and the landlord had not started any remedial work. It completed the final remedial work to the flooring in November 2025. The resident also told us she replaced the carpet herself recently because she was unhappy with the landlord’s delays.
18. The landlord’s communication was poor. It did not keep the resident updated. It said there were internal issues with its contractor and its record keeping, which caused uncertainty about what work it had raised, completed and what was outstanding. Where repairs are complex or take longer than expected, we expect landlords to update residents and manage their expectations, but it did not do this.
19. In view of the landlord’s delays, poor communication and records, we found maladministration in its handling of the resident’s leak and repairs. In its stage 1 response it offered £124 compensation for its delays and inconvenience caused. In its stage 2, it offered an additional £400 compensation. Its total offer of £524 is not proportionate to the failings we identified and the impact on the resident. We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident an additional £350 for the distress and inconvenience it caused her. This is in line with our compensation guidance for failings which adversely affected the resident, that the landlord acknowledged, and made some attempt to put things right.
20. In its stage 2 response, the landlord also offered £115.50 towards the resident’s expenses using a dehumidifier from 27 January to 28 February 2025. After its stage 2 response it increased this to £234.50 because of her further use up to 3 April 2025. It based this on a daily rate of £3.50, which was in line with its compensation policy.
21. The landlord told us it would reimburse the resident £3,400 for her carpet replacement, and £8,645 for a disturbance allowance payment. It said the disturbance allowance payment is for the period from 10 November 2024 to 15 July 2025, based on a daily amount of £20 for the resident, and £15 for her child. The landlord’s decant policy refers to a disturbance payment when a resident is temporary rehoused. It says it covers reasonable expenses and a food allowance but does not say how much the daily food allowance is. We have ordered the landlord to pay the expenses if it has not already done so.
22. The resident is unsure what compensation and expenses the landlord has paid her or offered. She also wants it to pay more compensation for her damaged belongings. We recommend it sends the resident a full breakdown of the compensation and expenses it has paid and offered. We also recommend it gives her details of how to make a claim to its liability insurer if she is dissatisfied with any amount it has offered for her damaged belongings.
23. The resident told us she wants a rent refund for the time she was re-housed. During temporary re-housing, resident’s normally keep tenancy of their home so rent remains payable on it and the landlord pays for the temporary accommodation. The landlord’s decant policy says the resident remains responsible for paying the rent at her home during the period of temporary accommodation.

24. The landlord’s complaints policy says it will respond at stage 1 within 10 working days, and at stage 2 within 20 working days of an escalation request. The landlord’s definition of a complaint and response timescales are in line with our Code.
25. The landlord responded to the resident’s stage 1 and 2 complaints in accordance with its  policy timescale.
26. In her complaint escalation, the resident complained about the landlord’s handling of her previous leak from July 2021. The landlord told her it resolved the leak 2 years ago and as such, did not investigate this leak in its complaint. This was in line with its complaints policy, which says it will not investigate complaints about issues over 12 months old.

In view of the above, we found no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Learning

27. The landlord should learn from this case and ensure it is following its policy timescales for repairs. It should review our spotlight report on repairs and maintenance.
28. The landlord should ensure it is clear on the compensation it has offered. It should consider updating its decant policy to be clearer about its disturbance payment and daily food allowance.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

29. The landlord acknowledged its record keeping issues contributed heavily to its delays. It should review and incorporate the best practise highlighted in our Spotlight report on knowledge and information management.
30. The landlord was unable to find its communication directing the resident to its insurer for her personal belongings claim. The landlord should ensure it has a full record of call logs with residents and any follow up emails.

Communication

31. The landlord should consider how it can improve its repair updates with residents by giving clear, timely, and proactive updates.
32. The landlord should ensure its repair instructions to contractors are clear with correct details and sufficient information.