Westminster City Council (202103767)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202103767

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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
    1. reports of damage caused by its contractors.
    2. reports of inadequate heating and hot water in the property.
    3. associated complaint.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident in a tenant of the landlord.
  2. On 11 March 2021, the landlord visited the resident’s property with an electrician and identified that three storage heaters needed to be replaced due to the heaters being unrepairable.
  3. On 30 March 2021, the landlord installed three new heaters in the property.
  4. The resident raised a complaint on 3 April 2021; this Service was not provided with a copy of this complaint. However, the resident’s complaint was described by the landlord as: that the resident was unhappy that she had been left without hot water in her property, and therefore she had to use emergency hot water, which was more expensive. The resident wanted to be compensated for the additional cost of using this emergency hot water.
  5. In the landlord’s stage one complaint response, dated 22 April 2021, the landlord upheld some of the resident’s complaint. It stated that it was made aware of a hot water concern in the property on 31 March 2021; this was raised as an emergency repair. The landlord attended the property on 1 April 2021 where it found a ‘failure’ of the boiler immersion heater which needed to be repaired. The landlord said that this was a specialised repair and that the parts needed had to be ordered and could take up to four weeks to be delivered. As a result, the repair would take 28 days to complete. The landlord offered £25 compensation to the resident for not explaining that the repair would be completed within 28 days rather than within the emergency repair timeframe of 4 days and also apologised for this miscommunication. In addition, the landlord explained that an administrative error led to it reattending the property on 7 April 2021, before the part had been delivered. An appointment for the repair was, therefore, scheduled for 30 April 2021, and it expected the repair to be completed within 28 days. The landlord said that there was no service failure in the ordering of the part as it was done in line with its repair policy, and, as such, it would not be compensating for the use of emergency hot water.
  6. On the same day, the resident requested her complaint to be escalated to stage two of the landlord’s complaints process. The resident said she was unhappy with the lack of compensation offered, as she had spent more than £25 extra on electricity due to using emergency hot water. She also said she was unhappy with the response, as she had to live without adequate heating, for a long period of time.
  7. On 6 May 2021, the resident raised a new complaint with the landlord. The resident complained that she had been without adequate heating since January 2021. The resident said that the installation of her heaters on 7 April 2021 was unsatisfactory and had caused damage to her property. The resident said the contractors who fitted the heaters had caused damage to her walls, blinds and heaters and that one of the heaters in the property was still not working.
  8. The resident emailed the landlord again, on 11 May 2021, requesting her initial complaint, regarding the lack of compensation for the use of her emergency hot water, to be escalated to stage two of the landlord’s process. The Ombudsman has not seen evidence of the landlord’s stage two response to this complaint.
  9. The landlord attended the resident’s property on 17 May 2021. It identified six scuff marks on the walls, two broken blinds, dents to one heater, hanging wires from another heater, and that the third heater was not working at all.
  10. The landlord issued a separate stage one complaint response on 19 May 2021. The landlord said during the inspection that the resident did not want the damaged heaters to be replaced and, therefore, this did not take place. The landlord apologised that her blinds had been damaged; but after an investigation into the matter, it could find no conclusive evidence that it was caused during the installation of the heaters or that it was caused by the landlord’s operatives. Therefore, it could not accept responsibility for any damage to the blinds. The landlord advised the resident that generally it does not compensate for any damage to personal items, but instead advises all residents to take out a contents insurance policy and encouraged the resident to make a claim on her insurance for the damaged blinds. The landlord also arranged for the heater to be fixed, for the hanging wire to be stapled to the wall, and for an operative to attend the property and redecorate the scuff marks caused during the installation.
  11. This Service did not receive the resident’s request for the complaint to be escalated to stage two of the landlord’s complaints process. However, the resident’s complaint was described by the landlord as follows: the resident said she did not request for the damaged heaters to be replaced, as she did not believe that this would be approved by the landlord. She was also unhappy that she had been advised to claim on her contents insurance for the repair of the blinds, as she said that the operatives had caused the damage and therefore, she wanted this to be reimbursed by the landlord. The resident also requested financial reimbursement for the decoration of the property instead of the landlord providing operatives to complete this work.
  12. This Service did receive evidence that, on 7 June 2021, the landlord extended its response timescale for its stage two response to 23 June 2021. The landlord said that this was due to staff shortages. It is unclear from the information provided whether the landlord notified the resident that there would be a delay to its stage two response.
  13. The landlord issued its stage two complaint response to the resident on 23 June 2021. The landlord said it would not be able to replace the dented storage heaters, but it had noted that these were damaged during installation. It also said it could not find any conclusive evidence that the operators had caused damage to the resident’s blinds; but, regardless of this, it would not reimburse residents for any damaged items and instead it recommended that the resident claim via her home contents insurance. The landlord did state, however, that it had referred the matter to senior management and requested a receipt for the cost of her blinds. This Service was not provided with any evidence of the outcome of the senior management investigation. The landlord said that it had also arranged for operatives to attend the resident’s property to ‘check’ the installation of the faulty heater and repair the wires that were left hanging. It also said that typically when a contractor causes damage to a resident’s property, it is asked to return and rectify the issues. However, the landlord said that the resident had not provided access to her property for these repairs; it instead offered £30 compensation for the cost of paint and other associated materials for her to paint over the scuff marks.  The landlord apologised for the resident’s experience during the repairs process and said that contractors made errors which could have been avoided. In total the landlord offered £50 compensation: £30 for reimbursement of decorating materials and £20 for the time and trouble in pursuing the matter.
  14. In August 2021, the resident referred this matter to the Ombudsman. The resident remained unhappy that the landlord was not taking accountability for the damage to her property. The resident also remained unhappy that for her to seek remedy via her home contents insurance, it would leave her £250 out of pocket for her excess fee, and therefore the resident was not willing to proceed down this route. The resident, however, accepted the landlord’s offer of £30 reimbursement for the decoration of her property.

Assessment and findings

Policies and procedures

  1. The tenancy handbook states that whilst residents are responsible for decorating the inside of their property, the landlord may pay for decorating after completing repairs or if the decorations are damaged by a repair that the landlord was responsible for. The tenancy handbook also states that all contractors working for the landlord must be fully insured; this covers any damage caused by being careless whilst carrying out work. This insurance would cover damage to residents’ personal belongings caused by the landlord’s contractors. If residents wish to make a claim, they should contact the contractor and deal with it directly.
  2. The landlord’s tenancy handbook states the landlord has a duty to repair:
    1. Heating and hot water installations
    2. Boilers, heating and hot water applications
    3. Radiators, pipework and controls
  3. The tenant handbook also states that repairs will be completed in accordance with the urgency of the repair;
    1. Emergency issues which pose an immediate health and safety risk such as: fire, loss of electricity or water supply. The landlord would respond within 2-4 hours.
    2. Urgent plumbing works, blockages, and works. The landlord would respond and start work within 24 hours.
    3. Non-urgent repairs are the types of repairs that are more substantial such as: joinery, plastering, damp proof courses, major repairs including structural work and roofing works. The tenancy handbook does not specify a timescale for non-urgent repairs.
  4. The landlord’s compensation policy states that time and trouble in pursuing complaints should be compensated between £50 to £250. For the loss of heating and hot water for less than four weeks, the resident should be provided with temporary heaters by the landlord. For delays in carrying out repairs resident should be compensated £500 for minor repairs outstanding or incomplete for more than a year. The compensation policy does not specify what compensation would be paid for delays to repairs of less than a year, although it says that this amount should be calculated on a pro-rata basis for shorter periods of delay. 
  5. The landlord’s complaints policy states that, at both stages of its procedure, an acknowledgement will be sent within two working day and a response will be sent in ten working days. However, if more time is needed to investigate, a holding response will be sent to the resident explaining the reason for the delay and when a full response would be provided.

The resident’s reports of damage caused by the landlord’s contractors.

  1. When receiving a complaint regarding damage caused to a resident’s property by a hired contractor, the landlord should complete an investigation. It should gather evidence of the damage caused, interview the resident and the contractors, and come to a reasonable and informed outcome based on the available evidence. Alternatively, the landlord could decide to refer the claim to its liability insurer to investigate.
  2. The landlord’s complaint response noted that it could not uphold the resident’s complaint in full due to insufficient evidence. It came to this conclusion in a reasonable fashion by undertaking an investigation of the issue on the basis of the available evidence. Specifically, it contacted the contractors that attended the property and arranged a visit to assess the damage caused. While noting that there was insufficient evidence to establish beyond doubt that the contractors had caused all of the damage – notably the damage to the resident’s blinds – the landlord did offer £30 compensation for the damage to the walls and said it would record that the damage to the heaters occurred during installation, but it would not be able to replace them as the heaters remained functional, although they were damaged.
  3. The landlord’s decision to award the resident financial compensation for the decorating was a reasonable attempt to resolve the matter and put things right. The landlord’s records state that the resident agreed to not have the heaters replaced in her property and, therefore, the landlord did not replace these. However, it was reasonable for the landlord to record the damage to these heaters on its internal records, so it was aware that the heaters were damaged during installation. 
  4. The landlord was reasonable in advising the resident to make a claim via her home contents insurance for the damage to her blinds after its investigation. As above, the tenancy handbook states that residents can make insurance claims against the landlord’s contractors and the landlord could have referred the matter to the contractor’s insurer. However, it is not possible to say what the outcome of such a claim would have been. If the resident would like to submit a claim via the contractor’s insurance, the landlord should facilitate this contact and advise the resident on the next steps. The landlord would not be responsible for paying the £250 excess fee of the resident’s contents insurer the landlord would only be expected to pay for damage if the evidence confirmed it was responsible for causing it and as above, this has not been proven.

The resident’s reports of inadequate heating and hot water in the property.

  1. The landlord does not have a policy specifying what compensation will be paid for loss of heating and hot water. However, it is good industry practice for compensation to be considered for loss of heating and hot water, if the problem has gone on for more than a few days in the colder months of the year, unless temporary heating and water heating facilities were provided by the landlord.
  2. In its responses to the complaint, the landlord showed it had considered the resident’s request for compensation for the lack of hot water in her property but found that this could not be compensated due to the repair being within its repair policy timeline of 28 days for non-urgent repairs. However, the landlord did not demonstrate that it had considered compensation for the resident’s reports of inadequate heating. Due to the lack of detailed information from the landlord such as repair logs showing the date when the lack of heating was first reported, this Service can only estimate compensation based on the information provided. It is estimated the resident was without adequate heating for four months and had to use emergency hot water for one month.
  3. Where we have established that the landlord has made errors which affected the resident, it is this Services approach to look at putting the resident back in the position they would have bene in had there not been service failure by the landlord. Where that is not possible this Service considers compensation. When assessing compensation in this case, the Ombudsman has taken into consideration that the resident was not completely without hot water, but it was more expensive for the resident due to having to use the emergency hot water. The resident was also not completely without heating, but it was not working fully which would have caused her some level of inconvenience.
  4. The resident had inadequate heating between an estimated period of January 2021 to April 2021, when the repairs were completed. The landlord should have compensated accordingly for this partial loss of heating and accounted for time taken to resolve the heating issues during winter.
  5. It is understandable that the landlord may require additional time to obtain a specialised part for a repair and the landlord would not generally be expected to offer compensation to residents for distress and inconvenience caused by delays which were outside the landlord’s control. However, it should have considered compensation for the resident’s financial loss as a result of having to use the emergency hot water. This is because the landlord is responsible for providing hot water in line with the tenancy handbook and it did not do so, leading to the resident incurring extra costs. Although this was unavoidable, the resident should not be expected to bear the extra cost of getting hot water during this period.  Therefore, this Service has ordered the landlord to pay compensation to the resident for the extra costs she incurred as a result of having use the emergency hot water supply. The compensation is an estimate because the Ombudsman has not seen evidence of the exact cost of the emergency hot water compared to the cost of using the normal hot water supply during this period.

The associated complaint.

  1. When the landlord receives a complaint, it should acknowledge it within two working day and provide a response within ten working days, unless the landlord informs the resident otherwise, as per its complaints policy. However, when the resident requested an escalation of her initial complaint on 22 April 2021 and 11 May 2021, the landlord did not escalate this or respond to the request. The resident requested the landlord to escalate her initial complaint as she was unhappy with the compensation offered; however, this was not addressed by the landlord. The landlord should have escalated her complaint and provided a stage two response in line with its complaints policy. Therefore, the landlord did not act in accordance with its complaint handling policy, leading to a failure in its service.
  2. The Ombudsman’s approach to compensation is set out in our remedies guidance, which is published on our website. The remedies guidance suggests that we may award compensation of between £50 to £250 compensation for instances of service failure by the landlord which was of short duration and may not have significantly affected the overall outcome of the complaint. Examples include repeated failures to reply to letters or return phone calls and failure to meet service standards for actions and responses but where the failure had no significant impact.
  3. In this case the landlord did not act in line with its own complaint policy as it did not escalate the resident’s complaint, despite the resident requesting this on two occasions. This resulted in delays in the resident being able to escalate her complaint through the landlord’s complaints process. These delays would have caused distress and inconvenience to the resident and the landlord should offer compensation in view of this. The landlord also did not compensate accordingly for the additional costs of the resident using the emergency hot water due to the landlords delay in repairing her boiler. The resident should not be expected to bear the extra cost of getting hot water during this period. It also did not compensate accordingly for the lack of adequate heating for an extended duration of four months, despite being responsible for the repair of the storage heaters in the property. As explained in more detail below, the landlord should offer the resident overall compensation of £200 for the distress and inconvenience she experienced as a result of these errors.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 55 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint regarding landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damage caused by its contractors satisfactorily.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in way the landlord handed the resident’s reports of inadequate heating and hot water in the property.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the associated complaint.

Reasons

  1. The landlord handled the resident’s reports of damage caused by its contractors appropriately and offered reasonable compensation for the cost of redecorating the damaged areas of the property. 
  2. The landlord should have provided some compensation to the resident for the extra costs of having to use emergency hot water and the distress and inconvenience caused by the lack of adequate heating.
  3. The landlord should have escalated the resident’s complaint to stage two of its internal process when requested. The landlord should pay the resident compensation, as detailed below for any distress and inconvenience caused by this failing.

Orders

  1. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to: 
  1. Pay £100 compensation to the resident for the failure in its complaint handling. This is inclusive of the £50 previously offered to the resident by the landlord.
  2. Pay £65 compensation for the lack of adequate heating in the property.
  3. Pay £35 compensation for the loss of hot water in the property.
  1. The total amount payable to resident is £200, inclusive of the £50 already offered to the resident, which can be deducted from the total if it has already been paid.

 

Recommendation

  1. The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord:
  1. Pay the resident £25 already offered for not informing the resident that the repair would be completed within 28 days, if it has not already done so.
  2. Review the timescales in the tenancy handbook to make it clearer what the timescale is for non-urgent repairs so residents know what to expect.