Westminster City Council (202106914)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202106914

Westminster City Council

27 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 level of compensation offered and organisational learning demonstrated by the landlord following a report of a leak causing damp and mould.

Background

2. The resident is a leaseholder of a two bedroom flat on the ground floor and lower ground floor. Both members of the household are referred to below as ‘the resident’.
3. The resident reported a leak in her flat at the beginning of January 2020. The resident said she had experienced an ‘identical’ issue previously that had been fixed by the landlord. On that occasion, communal pipes providing heat and water were repaired by the landlord after moisture was reported in the ceiling around the pipes. The resident suspected it was the same problem again. The landlord said that the resident’s floor would need to be taken up so the repair could be carried out.   
4. The landlord used a variety of contractors to carry out repair work and multiple visits were made. The landlord carried out a pressure test that indicated there was a leak in the communal heating system. The resident says she was not able to use her heating system properly during this time since it made the leak worse.
5. In March 2020, the resident sent an email to the landlord saying that the surveyors acting for each of the contractors were not working together effectively and this was causing additional disruption and delaying the repair. At the end of April 2020, the resident emailed again threatening to seek legal advice due to the five month delay in resolving the reported leak.
6. Due to issues including accessibility, closure of jobs in error, and the need to carry out an asbestos survey and remove any asbestos present before carrying out repairs, repair works did not begin until 1 July 2020. At that time, the resident reported a strong smell of mould and said there was visible black mould on the bathroom ceiling. The resident was especially concerned about this due to asthma and said that a family member had gone to stay in alternative accommodation as a result.
7. On 5 November 2020, the resident reported a leak coming from the flat above into her bathroom which was not containable and was affecting the stairwell in a communal area of her block. The resident said this was the same leak issue that she had reported in January 2020 and which should have been resolved much earlier.
8. The landlord attended site on 6 November 2020 but was unable to gain access to the flat above. The landlord provided a demudifier to the resident and returned on 10 and 11 November to gain access. 
9. On 9 December 2020, the resident made a formal complaint. Although a leak detection team had attended and confirmed it was a communal leak, the resident said that the landlord had taken no further action and that she had spent 14 hours on the phone on 16 occasions to the repair team. The resident said that repair jobs had been closed in error and she had been provided with three dehumidifiers that did not work. The resident said that the leak should have been resolved in January 2020.
10. On 4 January 2021, the landlord attended the flat above and found a leak in the kitchen behind the riser panel. The landlord found a cracked pipe which had become dislodged which was reconnected and repaired. The landlord said the kitchen waste pipe needed to be unblocked and a panel replaced. Dehumidifiers were provided to the resident which the resident said were faulty.
11. On 2 March 2021, the landlord provided a stage one complaint response. The landlord said in the stage one response that the evidence showed two leaks had been identified in January 2020 but only one of them had been actioned correctly. The first was a leak to the heating pipework which was repaired but there was also a drainage leak which was not investigated further or followed up on.
12. The landlord offered £1475 in compensation which was described as £500 for delays experienced from February 2020 to January 2021, £500 for distress and inconvenience over the same period, £250 for time and trouble pursuing the complaint, £100 failure to progress the drainage repair, £75 poor communication throughout, £50 for a late stage one complaint response.
13. On 5 March 2021, the resident requested escalation of her complaint and set out five reasons for escalating her complaint which were:
    1. Four months with floorboards up from May-Sept 2020
    2. Missed appointments despite taking time off work
    3. Family member with asthma who moved to alternative accommodation
    4. Over 50 hours on the phone trying to get a response and resolution
    5. No normal routine from April-September 2020 due to disruption
14. On 19 April 2021, the landlord responded at the second stage of the complaints process. The landlord increased the compensation to a total of £2485 and provided information on the organisational learning it had made following the complaint.  The landlord offered £2485 in compensation which was described as £1000 for delays experienced from February 2020–January 2021, £1000 for distress and inconvenience over the same period, £250 for time and trouble pursuing the complaint, £100 failure to progress the drainage repair, £75 poor communication throughout, £50 for a late stage one complaint response, £10 for a late stage two response.
15. The landlord said that it had carried out an internal management review in the summer of 2020 and following this had established its own internal leak team and said its case management of leaks was ‘more focused and robust’ as a result and that residents could be updated more regularly from this single point of contact. The landlord also said it had started weekly leak detection meetings as well as introducing online reporting for residents. 

Assessment and findings

16. Under the terms of the resident’s lease, the landlord is required to keep the premises “in good and substantial repair and condition (and whenever necessary rebuild and reinstate and renew and replace all worn or damaged parts)” including maintenance of “all cisterns, tanks, sewers, drains, gutters, pipes, and conduits for the purpose of supplying water gas electricity heat.”
17. It is not disputed by the landlord that there was substantial service failure in the period from January 2020 when the resident first reported the leak to the end of the complaints process at the end of April 2021. The landlord has accepted responsibility for the following service failures:
    1. Delay in carrying out repairs from Feb 2020-Jan 2021
    2. Not carrying out or following up some of the identified repairs needed in January 2020
    3. Poor communication with the resident
    4. Late complaints responses
    5. Providing dehumidifiers that were not fit for purpose
    6. An overall poor performance below the expected standards of the landlord
18. Where there has been acknowledged service failure by the landlord, the role of the Ombudsman is to determine whether the actions taken by the landlord through the complaints process are sufficient to provide reasonable redress to the affected resident. The landlord has apologised to the resident for the distress and inconvenience caused and has now carried out the needed repairs to resolve the leak to the satisfaction of the resident. In addition, the landlord has provided a total of £2485 in compensation.
19. It is clear there has been a substantial impact on the resident as a direct result of the landlord’s failings. In addition to the disruption caused by the leak itself, the repeated visits to her property and the time and trouble of pursuing her complaint over an extended period, the resident has experienced several months with no proper flooring, has had acknowledged damp and mould problems, and the inconvenience and cost of a member of the household staying elsewhere due to asthma.
20. The Housing Ombudsman is not able to award damages in the same way a court operates. Particularly we are not able to accurately assess any impact on physical or mental health as a result of a landlord’s failures. Rather we focus on identifying service failures by the landlord and assessing how they can be put right and how the landlord can learn lessons from this for the future.
21. Housing Ombudsman guidance states that awards of £700 or above can be made in recognition of maladministration or severe maladministration where there has been a severe long-term impact on the resident. Given the extended period  of delayed repairs, the disruption to the resident including the need for a family member to stay in alternative accommodation, a compensation payment of over £700 is warranted. No specific evidence has been seen regarding the cost or duration of the alternative accommodation.
22. Taken as a whole, the landlord’s offer of compensation is £2485. The resident made her first report of a leak in January 2020 and the final repair was carried out in January 2021. The landlords offer therefore equates to just over £200 a month for effectively 12 months of disruption and delay. Taking in to account the evidence available to this service regarding the extent and damage caused by the leak, this is proportionate to the impact of the failures and in line with guidance available on our website.
23. The total amount of financial compensation is significant, but the resident has also highlighted the need for the landlord to learn from the mistakes made within this complaint so that this does not happen to other residents. This was one of the main points of escalation of her complaint. Learning lessons from complaints is one of our key dispute resolution principles and demonstrates the complaint has been heard and taken seriously by the landlord.
24. The landlord has detailed in its stage two response the lessons it has learned from this complaint and said its use of online reporting for residents would help in keeping track of repair requests. The landlord also said it now held weekly leak detection meetings and had carried out an internal management review in the summer of 2020. Given the failure to carry out some of the identified follow up actions in January 2020, these are welcome changes that will hopefully help prevent this from happening again. The final stage complaints response clearly shows the landlord has reflected on its relevant processes and procedures and made appropriate adjustments. 

Determination

25. In accordance with paragraph 55b of the Housing Ombudsman scheme, reasonable redress has been provided to the resident and organisational learning has been demonstrated by the landlord following a report of a leak causing damp and mould.

Recommendation

26. It is recommended that the landlord re-offer the resident a total of £2485 compensation minus any compensation already paid within four weeks.