Westminster City Council (202106183)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202106183

Westminster City Council

21 April 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 reports of faults to a new front door installed in 2019 and two windows in the living room and bedroom.

Background

2. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. The property is a one-bedroom flat, situated in a supported accommodation housing block.
3. In 2019, contractors of the landlord attended the property to install a new front door. The resident initially raised concerns about the front door in October 2020 following the installation, explaining that, as a result of the poor standard of repair work, she had to put up with excessive amounts of draught and noise that were coming into the property. In addition to this, the resident had expressed concerns about the level of noise and draught emitted through her bedroom and living room windows.
4. The landlord contacted the resident and arranged to visit the property in October 2020. On visitation, the resident had explained the noise emitted from her windows and door was very loud in windy weather conditions and was only noticeable when the weather was bad. The landlord agreed that it was difficult to observe, and it could not quantify the level of noise. The landlord had requested that the resident send video evidence of the noise which the resident had done. It had advised the resident that the windows needed new gaskets and a draught excluder was to be fitted to the front door. The works were to be arranged.
5. The resident’s formal complaint was submitted to the landlord in November 2020. The resident had expressed concerns about the delays in carrying out repairs. In November 2020, a surveyor visited the property to inspect the windows and door. The resident had put a plastic sheet over the living room window to stop the draught. The surveyor concluded that new windows needed to be fitted. The resident said the surveyor had advised her that the difficulties caused by faulty windows had made her living conditions unacceptable.
6. The resident continued to correspond with the landlord about the repairs between October 2020 and June 2021, by which time, it had carried out repairs to remedy the issues raised, fitting new draught excluders to the front door, fitting a new letterbox and installing draft proofing around the letterbox.
7. The complaint was escalated to stage two of the landlord’s complaints process in July 2021. The resident confirmed that the works carried out had not remedied the draught and noise to the door and that the window repairs had not been looked at. In July 2021, the landlord visited the property to fit new draught excluders which were stuck to the outside of the window frames. The original rubber fittings inside the frames were not replaced.
8. The resident reported suffering from stress and anxiety caused by the delays to outstanding repair issues. When the resident raised concerns about her mental health with the landlord, she was advised to go to her GP. The resident had also stated she was unable to sleep at night as the draught noise was loud, and so she had to stay with her daughter when the weather was too bad for her to stay in her own home. In her complaint to the Housing Ombudsman Service, the resident mentioned that she had requested to move due to the distress and inconvenience she suffered but had not received any information from the landlord regarding this. The resident was dissatisfied with length of time taken to resolve the issues and had confirmed that she wanted to receive compensation for the delays and failure in repairing the issues with a view for the windows in her home to be replaced.
9. The landlord’s final response to the complaint was issued in July 2021. The landlord argued that the windows were in good condition and that they did not need replacing. It advised that, as the rubber draught strip was brittle, it had fitted new draught excluders to the windows. In respect of repairs to the front door, the landlord confirmed its position in that it did not uphold the resident’s complaint.
10. The resident’s outstanding concerns were that works carried out had not remedied the draught and noise to the door and that the window repairs had not been looked at.

Assessment and findings

Scope of Investigation

11. The resident has referenced how the landlord’s failure to repair outstanding issues has impacted her health. Whilst we do not doubt the resident’s comments, it is outside the role of the Ombudsman to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This would be more appropriately dealt with as a personal injury claim through the courts or the landlord’s liability insurer if it has one. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident. This is an accordance with paragraph 39(i) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme which says the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable, or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, a designated person, other tribunal or procedure.

Policies and procedures

12. The tenancy agreement obliges the landlord to keep the structure and exterior of the property in good repair including repairs to entrances to the building, windowsills, and frames.
13. The landlord’s compensation policy confirms it has discretion to award compensation based on the circumstances of each case. The landlord is obliged to consider the severity of the case, the distress and inconvenience caused, and the length of time the problem occurred.
14. The landlord’s compensation policy confirms it will consider compensating a resident for distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s errors. The compensation ranges from £500-£2000 per year dependent on the severity of the case.

Faults to a new front door installed in 2019.

15. In October 2020, the resident had reported that the standard of workmanship to the installation of her front door in 2019 was poor as the sound of wind passing through gaps in the door was very loud. The landlord would be expected to repair the door in line with its responsibilities for maintaining the structure of the building, as set out in the tenancy agreement. It had advised the resident that new draught excluders were to be fitted to the front door to stop the draught. These were not fitted until a period of seven months after the resident had raised concerns in October 2020.   It is not clear from the information provided to the Ombudsman whether the fitted draught excluders resolved the draught to the front door.
16. In the landlord’s stage two complaint response, it apologised for the delays taken to resolve the issue and had confirmed it had inspected the front door and fitted a new letterbox to resolve the issue of draught coming into the resident’s home from the communal corridor. To compensate for the delays, the landlord had agreed to the resident’s request to paint one room in her property. In addition to this, it had also offered the resident £80. This was in line with its compensation guidance, but it was disproportionately low when considering the length of time of these repair delays and the failure to consider the impact this would have had on the resident’s lifestyle, living in a supported housing block for retired residents. This Service would have expected that the resident’s concerns would have been addressed promptly and prioritised by the landlord in view of her medical conditions which meant the impact of the draught may have been more significant for her.
17. Overall, the resident remained dissatisfied with the repair works as she had explained that it did not remedy the draught coming into the property. In view of this, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to arrange an inspection of the repair works to the door and to provide adequate compensation in the range of £100 to £200 in line with its compensation policy of delays taken to carry out repairs. This amount is also in line with Ombudsman Services’ remedies guidance (published on our website) which says we may award between £50-£250 in cases where we have found there has been service failure by the landlord which had an impact on the complainant but was of short duration and may not have significantly affected the overall outcome for the complainant. 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 on the overall outcome of the complaint.

Faults to a living room and bedroom window.

18. Repairs to the windows were not addressed by the landlord until July 2021. Although the landlord acted in line with its obligations as set out in the tenancy agreement by fitting draught excluders to the windows, the resident had sent pictures to show evidence of the poor standard of workmanship of the fitting of the draught excluders (with the draught excluders appearing to be detached from the windows in places). As stated in the tenancy agreement, the landlord had a responsibility to carry out repair works and so it would have been expected to ensure that the works had been carried out properly and to a good standard. Given the resident’s vulnerabilities with her impaired use of her hands, it would have been appropriate and fair for the landlord to follow up in communications with the resident over the seven-month period to ensure works were arranged much sooner. This would have prevented this issue reaching a stage where the works had not been completed for several months. The delay has not been adequately explained by the landlord and therefore it appears to have been unreasonable.
19. The landlord acted appropriately in apologising to the resident and attempting to repair the faults to the windows and door; however, it should have managed the resident’s expectations, keeping her updated concerning the reasons for the delay and, if possible, it should have given her a revised timescale for when the repair was likely to be completed. The landlord has recognised and accepted in its complain responses that its service had been poor, but it is still unclear whether the repairs have been carried out to a good standard. It appears the repairs carried out have not resolved the problems with the windows as the resident has continued to report the same issues after the repairs were carried out.
20. To put things right, the landlord should arrange an inspection of the works carried out to date. As the landlord has already attempted to repair the windows unsuccessfully, it should now consider whether the windows should be replaced rather than attempting further repairs. It was reasonable for the landlord to attempt to repair the windows in the first instance. However, in view of the delays which have already occurred, it would not be reasonable for the resident to be expected to wait for an extensive length of time for further repairs which may ultimately also prove unsuccessful.
21. On inspection, the landlord’s contractor did suggest at one point that the windows needed replacing but this was contradicted by the surveyor and by another operative at the contractor’s office who agreed with the surveyor. Ultimately it is the surveyor’s opinion which carries the most weight if they have a higher level of qualification than the contractor’s operative would typically have. Although there was a difference of opinion, it was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the surveyor’s judgement that the windows could be repaired in the first instance.
22. As the repairs did not fix the issues relating to the noise and draught, the resident had also put forward a request to the landlord addressing her concerns to move home. The landlord should provide the resident support with her request and should respond to the resident discussing her options to move, if it has not done so already.

Determination

23. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of repairs to the resident’s front door and windows.

Orders

24. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay the resident a total of £400 compensation.
25. This is inclusive of the landlord’s offer to paint one room in the resident’s property and offer to pay the resident £80 which can be deducted from the total awarded by the Ombudsman if it has already been paid.
26. The payment should be made within four weeks of this decision.

Recommendations

27. The landlord should ensure that it discusses the resident’s options for moving home if it has not done so already.