City of Westminster Council (202526514)

Decision
Case ID	202526514
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	City of Westminster Council
Landlord type	Local Authority / ALMO or TMO
Occupancy	Secure Tenancy
Date	23 April 2026

Background

The resident told the landlord that contractors had caused damage while completing repairs, and left rubbish outside her home. The landlord cleared the rubbish, but the resident made a complaint as she felt it did not complete the repairs in a reasonable time. She also asked the landlord to install connection points for a washing machine and dishwasher as she felt they would help with her disabilities and reduced mobility.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s requests for:
1. Repairs.
2. Dishwasher and washing machine connection points.
We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

We found:
1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for repairs.
2. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for dishwasher and washing machine connection points.
There was no maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

Handling of the resident’s request for repairs

The landlord’s records say it completed repairs to the windows and plaster. But it is not clear what work it did and whether any work was outstanding. It often did not meet its policy response times and gave no clear explanation why. The level of compensation it offered was not proportionate to the inconvenience the resident experienced.

Handling of the resident’s request for dishwasher and washing machine connection points

The landlord did not reply to the resident’s request within a reasonable time which meant she had to chase it. It did not acknowledge this in the complaint and did not offer any redress.

Complaint handling

The landlord followed its policies and gave clear responses.

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.

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
1	Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: the apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic it has due regard to our apologies guidance	No later than 21 May 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £400 made up as follows: £50 for time, trouble and inconvenience associated with its handling of her request for washing machine and dishwasher connectors £350 for time, trouble, distress and inconvenience associated with the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for repairs. If the £50 offered during the complaints process has been paid, it can be deducted from this figure this must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date	No later than 21 May 2026
3	Inspection order The landlord should inspect the plastering in the resident’s hallway by the due date. It must complete any required plastering repairs within 4 weeks of the date of the inspection and provide us with evidence it has done so.	No later than 21 May 2026
4	Contact order The landlord should contact the resident to discuss her options regarding the dishwasher and washing machine connection points. It must confirm whether it may help her with the matter under a different policy, such as aids and adaptations. If not, it should signpost the resident to any other agencies or departments that may be able to help her. The landlord must provide us with a summary of this conversation by the due date.	No later than 21 May 2026

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
8 April 2025	The resident complained that the landlord’s contractors had damaged a wall and door when taking down scaffolding after earlier works. She also said that 2 windows were draughty and damaged. The landlord acknowledged the complaint 2 days later.
23 April 2025	The landlord sent its stage 1 response and did not uphold the resident’s complaint. It said it made efforts to call her and book appointments for repairs but could not get hold of her. It asked her to call it and arrange an appointment time.
18 August 2025	The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request. She also said she was unhappy with its decision not to install connection points for a washing machine and dishwasher.
18 September 2025	The landlord sent a stage 2 response. It confirmed that the repairs were all completed by 16 September 2025. It acknowledged it did not communicate effectively about what was in the scope of the original works and offered £50 compensation.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident wants the landlord to install the washing machine and dishwasher connection points. She also said that the wall damage in her hallway was not fully rectified.

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 request for repairs
Finding	Service failure

On 18 December 2024 the resident reported a broken window lock and said there were gaps between the window frames and the walls. There is no evidence to show that the lock failure meant the window was insecure. The landlord replaced the lock on 30 December 2024. This was within the landlord’s 28-day target for non‑urgent repairs.
The landlord inspected the windows again on 11 February 2025. It completed further repairs on 8 April 2025 by adding sealant and adjusting the hinges. The landlord completed this repair outside its policy timescale of 28 days for non‑urgent repairs.
On 1 May 2025 the resident requested secondary glazing, saying that the property was cold. On 5 June 2025 the landlord confirmed that 2 windows were beyond repair and required replacement. It is not clear from the evidence whether the landlord considered or installed secondary glazing to the remaining windows. It approved a quotation for replacement works on 8 August 2025 and completed the installation on 16 September 2025.
The evidence does not explain the approximately 2‑month delay between the landlord concluding that the windows were beyond repair and approving the quotation for replacement. This lack of progress meant the resident felt she had to chase the repair. The resident has also told us that she believes the landlord is planning to replace the remaining windows, however the landlord’s records do not support this.
On 30 December 2024 the resident reported a draught coming through the communal front door. There is no evidence to show that the door was insecure. The landlord inspected the door on 18 March 2025 and adjusted the hinges on 10 September 2025. There is no explanation about why it took almost 3 months to inspect and a further 6 months to repair. This exceeded its policy timescales.
The resident reported damaged plaster in the hallway on 18 February 2025. She chased this repair on 29 July 2025 after the landlord moved a planned appointment to August 2025 without explanation. The landlord’s records show 2 different completion dates in August and September 2025. It is not clear when the landlord completed the works or what the scope of the works was. However, the overall response significantly exceeded the landlord’s 28-day timescale for routine repairs.
There is no clear explanation for the delays across the repairs, and the landlord did not provide proactive updates to the resident unless she made contact. The resident told us that one wall is still damaged.
For the reasons set out above, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs. While it carried out some inspections and completed some works, there were significant and repeated delays across all repair issues, which the landlord has not adequately explained. The landlord did not consistently progress repairs within its published timescales, did not keep the resident appropriately informed, and did not keep clear records showing the scope of works or what it did on each visit. As a result, we cannot be satisfied that it completed all identified repairs or that the landlord had proper oversight of the repair process.
The landlord offered the resident £50 compensation for poor communication. However, it is not clear which aspect of the repairs this related to. This amount does not reflect the level of distress, inconvenience, and time and trouble experienced by the resident. We therefore consider the landlord should pay the resident an added £300 compensation to recognise the likely impact of its handling of repairs. This amount is in line with our remedies guidance for failures that the landlord has not fully acknowledged and which have adversely affected a resident.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for dishwasher and washing machine connection points
Finding	Service failure

The resident asked the landlord for the connection points on 30 May 2025. She said that due to her mobility issues, the appliances would support her to maintain her home. The landlord’s records show that it closed the request on 11 June 2025. There is no evidence it informed the resident when it did this.
The landlord’s policy says it will resolve routine repairs within 28 days. It told her that it would not install these connectors on 18 September 2025 in its complaint response. This was 79 working days after her request, and this was not reasonable or compliant with its policy.
The landlord’s decision not to install the connectors was consistent with its repairs policy, as it was not an emergency and the property was safe and suitable without them. But considering the resident’s health conditions it should have considered whether it could support her to apply for support with aids and adaptations.
There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for dishwasher and washing machine connection points. Its decision that the connection points did not fall under its repair responsibility was appropriate. But it did not tell the resident its decision in a reasonable time. It also did not consider whether it could support her under another policy, such as aids and adaptations. It should also have considered signposting her for external support given her vulnerabilities.
As such, the landlord should pay the resident £50 compensation for time and trouble caused to her. This amount is in line with our remedies guidance for a failure which has inconvenienced a resident.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	No maladministration

Our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) 1 April 2024 requires landlords to acknowledge a complaint or escalation request within 5 working days. Landlords must issue a stage 1 response within 10 working days of acknowledging the complaint. They must also issue a stage 2 final response within 20 working days of an escalation acknowledgement. The landlord acknowledges these expectations within its complaints policy.
The landlord met these timescales at stage 1, and at stage 2 informed the resident when it needed to extend the timescale. This was reasonable, as it was only a 2-day delay.
The landlord’s responses were thorough and addressed all matters within the resident’s complaint.

Learning

In this case, repairs were delayed and poorly tracked, leaving the resident to chase progress. We expect landlords to properly oversee repairs, especially where delays occur.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

The landlord’s repair records were not clear or detailed. It is helpful for landlords to ensure repair records give a description of the work done at each appointment. This will reduce miscommunication where follow-up works are needed, or if the resident has questions.

Communication

The landlord kept records of the resident’s contact, but it did not contact her proactively with updates. This led to frustration for the resident as she felt ignored. Where the landlord recognises potential delays or finds a request falls outside its repair responsibilities, it would be good practice to update residents at the earliest opportunity.