Westminster City Council (202009730)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202009730

Westminster City Council

28 March 2022

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

The complaint is about the condition of the property.

Background and summary of events

Background

The two residents of the property have held a secure tenancy since 1994. The property is a two bedroom property, located on the ground floor.
One of the residents has a mental health condition which the landlord is aware of.
The complaint to this Service was brought on behalf of the residents by a representative. The representative was also in communication with the landlord regarding the matters raised in the formal complaint.

Summary of events

The resident reports that a leak from the flat above caused damage to their property. In January 2020, an order was raised for an inspection of damage caused by the leak. The landlord attended and found that extensive works were required to the kitchen, hallway, bathroom, and lounge. It also found that the resident had completed repair works to areas of the property themselves, without seeking prior permission.
After the inspection, the surveyor reported the following works were required:
1. Repairs and decorations to the kitchen that had previously been affected by the leak, including repairs to the flooring and the electrics. The surveyor noted that the resident had partially replaced the kitchen.
2. Renewal of the bath suite, splashback tiles and flooring in the bathroom and decorative works to the bathroom.
3. Repairs and decorations to leak damage in the hallway.
4. Decorative works to the lounge.
The landlord started the works to the bathroom but, the resident raised concerns about the standard of works carried out. As well as this, the resident’s representative said that they were not happy with the surveyor who attended, as they suggested that the repairs were the resident’s responsibility to address. Following this, the landlord visited the residents at the property and confirmed the schedule of works to be completed.
Between 31 January and 25 February 2020, the landlord resumed the repairs to the bathroom. It fitted the bathroom suite and the representative requested that the remainder of the works be put on hold, due to the stress the repairs were causing to the resident’s mental health. The resident then contacted the landlord and advised that they would carry out all the repairs themselves, except for the renewal of the flooring to the bathroom and the kitchen, which they wanted the landlord to do. They explained that due to the resident’s mental health condition, the presence of repair operatives in the property caused them distress. The work to renew the flooring was scheduled however, on attending, the contractor was not able to get access to the property and noted that the resident said they would call to rebook. The landlord contacted the resident but was not able to reach them. On this basis, it closed the repair order.
Around August 2020, the resident raised a disrepair claim. Their solicitor wrote to the landlord in August and September 2020. The landlord arranged a condition survey to the property, which took place on 7 October 2020. The surveyor made several repair recommendations. This included the repairs identified during the inspection in January 2020 and additional repairs to:
1. Investigate suspected damp in the hallway.
2. Renewal to the hot water tank jacket in the hallway.
3. Windows in the property.
The surveyor noted that the property was in a poor condition and had been subject to unauthorised repairs carried out by the resident. They said that due to the extent of the repairs required, it was recommended that the residents be decanted while the works took place. An independent survey was also arranged by the resident’s solicitor on 2 November 2020. The independent surveyor recommended repairs to the same areas as those identified by the landlord and also suggested that the resident be decanted while the works were carried out.
The resident submitted two formal complaints on 22 November and 1 December 2020, about the landlord’s response to the repairs. They believed that the repairs required to the property, were the result of the leak from the flat above and a lack of maintenance to the property by the landlord since the tenancy started. They did not believe that the works the landlord agreed to complete were comprehensive and did not consider the recommendation that they decant reasonable, due to the resident’s mental health condition. They said that they had a list of repairs that they considered urgent, that they wanted the landlord to complete as soon as possible, leaving the remainder of the repairs for a later date. The resident said that they were seeking compensation for the repairs they believe that they had to complete to the property previously. The landlord responded to the resident on 3 December 2020 that it could not review the complaint under its process, as the resident had an open disrepair case.
The resident submitted a further complaint on 17 December 2020, with a list of the outstanding repair issues they identified. They contacted this Service in January 2021 for assistance with the complaint and informed that the disrepair claim had since been stopped.
In response to the complaint, the landlord confirmed that it would be completing the repairs identified during the inspections. It explained that the disrepair to the property was not considered to be solely the result of leaks from the property above. It said that it was the standard of the alterations the resident had completed to the property that resulted in many of the repair issues it identified. In recognition of the resident’s concern about being decanted, the landlord agreed to plan and provide a schedule of works as to how the works would be done. It concluded that it found no service failure, as it considered the delay in completing the repair was due to the parties’ differing opinions about completing works while the residents were in occupation.
The resident requested an escalation of the complaint as they remained unhappy with the response. They said they wanted the landlord to compensate them for the distress and inconvenience, the impact the matter had had on their health and for their belongings that they said were damaged from the leak.
The landlord attended to the property as agreed, to discuss the schedule of works. It confirmed at the resident’s request, that the works would be completed one room at a time, starting with the remainder of works to the bathroom. While the works were ongoing, the contractor raised concerns to the landlord about the resident carrying out works themselves to areas of the property that were included in the schedule of works. As a result, the landlord was asked to meet with the resident. During the visit, further works were agreed.
The works to the bathroom restarted around 25 February 2021, at the same time the resident reported a repair to the hot water tank as they had a loss of hot water. When the contractor attended to resume the bathroom works, the residents made it aware that another contractor had attended to repair the hot water tank. The works were then placed on hold until the landlord clarified which of the two contractors would complete the repair required to the tank. The decision was made to allocate the repairs to the contractor who was completing the rest of the works to the bathroom. By 1 March 2021, the bathroom works resumed.
On the day the works restarted, the resident asked the landlord if it could amend the schedule of works and only complete minimal repairs to the kitchen, as the other resident needed a break. The resident clarified that they only wanted the flooring to be laid and the ceiling to be plastered in the kitchen for the time being and asked that this be completed by 5 March 2021. The contractor completed the bathroom repairs around 3 March 2021 and after this, started some works to the kitchen. It completed the majority of the repairs by 5 March 2021, but it had to reattend to add a joining strip to the flooring. It attended to fit this on 9 March 2021, however, was not given access. The resident advised that they wanted to put the works on hold until a later date.
After the works were completed to the bathroom and kitchen, the residents advised the landlord that they were not happy with the standard of the works carried out. They also reported damage to their washing machine and bathroom door. The landlord attended an inspection to review the issues raised. It said that the resident agreed to complete carpentry works in the bathroom and had stuck the kitchen flooring down already themselves. The landlord found that a repair to the cupboard door was required and raised an order for this.
The landlord issued its final response to the complaint on 14 April 2021. It said that it recognised that the repairs could have been carried out sooner and apologised for the delay in planning the works. It confirmed that some of the works from the schedule had been completed in March 2021 and at the residents’ request, the remainder of works would be completed at a time that was convenient for them. It offered the resident £175 in recognition of the time taken to arrange and complete the repairs, the impact this delay had on the residents and their time in pursuing the matter. It explained that the resident could pursue an insurance claim for belongings they said had been damaged from the leak, if they considered that the landlord had been negligent and provided the relevant details so they could do so. It acknowledged that the resident had raised a concern about the standard of the work previously carried out and confirmed that only a cupboard door was found to need repair. It advised that this was scheduled to be repaired on 19 April 2021.
After the complaint exhausted the complaints procedure, the parties were in contact regarding the remaining repairs to the property from the schedule. The resident’s representative sent the landlord a list of repairs that they believed to be either still outstanding or, completed to a poor standard. Since then, the landlord has sought the assistance of a third party to support it in accommodating the resident’s mental health whilst trying to plan how the repairs will be delivered. As of September 2021, the landlord confirmed that works remained outstanding, but it has maintained its agreement to complete these with the resident’s cooperation. The landlord has noted that it will require the resident to allow access to the property when agreed and refrain from completing any works or alterations to the property that will affect the works the landlord has agreed to do.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s tenancy handbook clarifies what repairs the landlord and resident have responsibility for. A resident must contact the landlord when a repair that falls within its responsibility needs to be done.
In this case, an inspection of the property was requested in January 2020, for damage following a leak from the flat above. Prior to the inspection, the last report of a leak to the property was made in November 2017. Between 2017 and January 2020, there is no evidence of a request from the resident for the landlord to attend and assess the condition of the property. This assessment, therefore, will consider the landlord’s handling of matters from when the inspection was raised in January 2020, up until the complaint finalised the complaints procedure.
When the landlord attended to the inspection in January 2020, it found that the property needed extensive repairs throughout. After the works started and the resident raised concern about the works and the information they had been given about responsibility for the repairs, the landlord visit the property to discuss this. During the visit, the landlord clarified what works it would complete to each area of the property. This was appropriate as it effectively managed the residents’ expectations of the repairs the landlord had responsibility for.
Between 31 January and 25 February 2020, the landlord completed the renewal to the bathroom suite however, had to pause the remainder of the works at the resident’s request due to the resident’s mental health condition. As a result of the impact the repairs were having on the other resident’s mental health condition, the resident asked the landlord to prioritise specific works from the schedule, and only renew the kitchen and bathroom flooring. The landlord agreed to this and scheduled for the works to be carried out however, the contractor was not allowed access on the day of the appointment. Internal records the landlord has provided, show that shortly after the unsuccessful appointment, it contacted the resident and was not able to reach them. The result of this was that the repair was closed.
In accordance with the terms of the tenancy, the resident is expected to provide access at reasonable times for repairs to be carried out. In this instance, the resident requested the works be put on hold and when works were scheduled to take place, they did not provide access or engage with the landlord to ensure that the repair could be completed. Given this, the delay in the completion of the repair to renew the flooring in this period, is not due to any service failure by the landlord. In addition, as the resident requested that only specific repairs be carried out at that time, the delay in the completion of the remainder of the repairs within the schedule, is not associated with any service delivery on the landlords part.
After February 2020, it was eight months before the landlord attended to the property again. It encountered difficulties getting in touch with the resident to rearrange the flooring renewal however, there is no evidence that within the eight months, it made any further efforts to get into contact with the resident and resume the works. This was not appropriate. The landlord was aware that due to a mental health condition, the resident found it difficult to have repairs carried out in the property but, it still had a responsibility to complete the extensive repairs required to the property.
This Service has been provided a copy of the schedule of works, which included electrical works and the reinstatement of hot water to the kitchen, both considered urgent priority repairs. It is expected therefore, that the landlord proactively try to work with the residents to ensure that it fulfils its repair responsibilities while taking the resident’s needs into consideration. Its failure to contact the residents to progress the repairs during the eight-month period, contributed to an avoidable delay in the completion of the repairs.
When the resident submitted formal complaints in November and December 2020, the landlord explained that it could not review the complaint under its complaints procedure, as the resident had an open disrepair case and it considered this as legal proceedings. Under Part 7 of the Civil Procedure Rules, proceedings are considered to have been issued where, and only where, the court has issued (stamped) a claim form. In the case of the resident, this was not the case therefore the landlord’s decision to not consider the complaint was not appropriate.
After it received confirmation that the disrepair claim had been dropped, it reviewed the formal complaint. In resolution to the concerns raised about the repairs, it acknowledged the resident’s request and reasons for not wanting a decant and agreed to work with them, so that the works could go ahead while they were in occupation.
After the stage one response, the landlord discussed the works with the resident who asked that it complete the works to the property in a specific order and it complied with this request. Before the works started, it discussed a programme of works with the resident’s representative and the works started the week commencing 22 February 2021.
While the works were ongoing, the landlord had to place the works on hold as the resident was completing repairs of their own, to areas which were already included on the schedule of works. This hindered the progress of the landlord’s repairs. The landlord had previously confirmed the schedule of works with the resident and confirmed the order it would be completing the works. In the event the resident was unsure about what repairs the landlord would be completing, it would have been reasonable for them to contact the landlord in the first instance before undertaking any repairs. Furthermore, in accordance with the terms of the tenancy agreement, any repairs carried out by the resident required the landlord’s authorisation, and this was not obtained by the resident before they complete any repair. The repairs the resident carried out themselves while the works were ongoing, meant that the landlord had to pause the works it was doing to assess the repairs the resident did. It then had to revise its schedule of works to include rectification work to the areas the resident had carried out unauthorised repairs to.
Between 25 February and 1 March 2021, the works were placed on hold again while the landlord clarified which contractor would take ownership of the repair to the hot water tank, associated with the bathroom repair. This pause in the works, was the result of an administration error by the landlord. Although, the pause in the works did not cause a significant delay in the overall completion of works, because it promptly established which of the two contractors would assume the work.
Before the landlord was able to complete all the works to the bathroom, the resident asked it to change the schedule again, and complete some of the works to the kitchen. The resident explained that the reason for this was due to the impact the works were having on the resident’s mental health. They asked that the landlord complete the requested works by 5 March 2021, the landlord accommodated this and completed the majority of the works by the given date. It was not able to add the joining strip to the kitchen flooring however, it scheduled this to take place the following week but and was not allowed access to the property to complete this. After this, the resident advised that they would resume the remainder of the works at a time that was more convenient for them.
The resident’s representative then raised issues with the standard of the works the landlord had completed, the landlord responded by attending to inspect. This was a reasonable response, from the inspection it was able to review the works carried out to the bathroom and kitchen and satisfy itself that these were completed. It found that a cupboard door required renewal and raised a repair for this accordingly.
From the time the inspection was raised in January 2020, until when the complaint finalised the complaints procedure in April 2021, the repairs in the property had been outstanding for nearly 15 months. The resident of the property has a mental health condition, which is exacerbated by operatives attending the property to carry out works. This has resulted in them requesting that the repairs be placed on hold on two occasions and asking the landlord to prioritise some works over others, leaving several repairs outstanding.
Eight months of this period was due to a lapse in the landlord’s service, as it did not contact the resident and attempt to plan the restart of the works after the resident put them on hold in February 2020. This was not acceptable as even though the resident had placed the works on hold, the landlord had a repair obligation to fulfil and was aware that extensive works were required. This was a missed opportunity for the landlord to resume the works sooner than they did.
The landlord has demonstrated that it has clearly communicated with the resident about the works. It shared the schedule of works and a programme with the resident in advance and adjusted this to meet the resident’s requests when they asked the landlord to deviate from this. Furthermore, it allowed the resident the opportunity to place the works on hold when they felt it was required.
In response to the complaint, the landlord reassured the resident of its commitment to do the repairs, followed through on the actions it agreed to complete and met with the resident to discuss how the repairs would be carried out.
Its compensation guidance explains that if a landlord’s actions cause an inconvenience for a customer, it can consider compensation. When the landlord responded to the complaint, it acknowledged that it took longer than necessary to arrange the works to the property. This was appropriate for it to do given the eight month period where it did not contact the resident. Its offer of compensation took into consideration, the impact its service failure had and the time the resident spent pursing the matter. Furthermore, it has made it clear to the resident what repairs it intended to complete and has since addressed the concerns the resident raised about the standard of the works carried out to the property.
Since the complaint finalised the complaints procedure, the parties have been in communication about the remainder of the repairs. The landlord has sought assistance from a third party to support it in working with the resident. It was due to complete another inspection of the property in September 2020 and agreed to provide the residents with a revised schedule of works with timescales, for the outstanding repairs and this is reasonable. The landlord will need the residents to cooperate with it, provide access for any scheduled appointments and, allow it to keep to the schedule of works so that all works can be completed.
The resident’s representative has informed this Service that since the surveyor’s report from last year, they have completed repairs themselves over several months.
It is unclear whether at this stage, whether the inspection the landlord arranged for September 2021 went ahead in the property and if since then, the landlord has carried out some or all, of the outstanding repairs from the schedule of works. Given this, a recommendation has been made below.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 55b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, in relation to the landlord’s response to the complaint about the condition of the property, the landlord has offered redress to the complainant prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

Reasons

The landlord has offered the resident compensation for the delay in arranging the works and has fulfilled the actions it agreed to take when it responded to the complaint, to ensure that the repairs are completed.

Recommendation

If the landlord has not already done so, it is to arrange for the payment of £175 compensation to be made to the resident.
If the repair works remain outstanding, the parties are to continue to work with each other so that the landlord can complete the outstanding repairs from the schedule.