Westminster City Council (202110458)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202110458

Westminster City Council

14 June 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 complaint concerning:
    1. a damaged wall and
    2. an electrical inspection.

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord.
  2. The landlord began major works to the property early 2019. In October 2020 the resident reported damp patches in her property. The landlord inspected in December 2020, and raised work orders. Details of the work orders are unknown.
  3. In December 2020 the resident reported a leak in her property. The landlord fixed the leak in January 2021. Its records show the leak was caused from the downpipe coming away from the gutter. The landlord attended in March 2021 in response to the resident’s concerns that the leak had caused damage to her property. In April 2021 the resident reported a “smokey smell” coming from her electrical air purifier. The fire brigade attended and disabled the device. The landlord’s records show it attended five days later and completed an electrical audit.
  4. The resident raised a formal complaint to the landlord in May 2021. She said a contractor had advised her that the dislodged downpipe was as a result of the scaffolding being removed in March 2020 (following the major works). She said the landlord was due to inspect her electrical installations following the incident in April 2021.
  5. The landlord explained in its complaint responses that as the scaffolding had not been removed recently, it could not confirm whether it had caused the leak. It explained its contractor’s findings. It said it had offered to repair and redecorate the damaged area in March 2021, but the resident had declined its offer as she wanted to complete the work herself. It offered her £135 to complete the work. It said it had tried to arrange an electrical inspection, but the resident had refused access.
  6. In the resident’s complaint to this Service, she said the landlord had not taken responsibility for the issue with the downpipe, and the damage caused. She said the landlord had not attended to inspect the cause of the faulty purifier.

Assessment and findings

  1. The resident’s tenancy agreement sets out that the landlord is responsible for repairs to drains, gutters, and pipes. The resident is required to grant access for any inspections or necessary work. The resident’s handbook explains that the landlord is also responsible for the repair of any electrical fittings that it has supplied. It will attend to emergency repairs (issues which pose an immediate risk) within 24 hours. It will attend to urgent repairs within three days, and non-urgent repairs within 28.
  2. The resident raised concerns with damage caused by the leak to an area of wall in her kitchen. The landlord attended to inspect the damage in March 2021. It offered to repair and redecorate the area, but the resident declined and said she would complete it instead. The landlord initially offered the resident £100 to complete the work, and then increased its offer to £135. It said the resident had not provided it with any information to indicate how much she expected the work would cost.
  3. This was a reasonable response from the landlord as it had already offered to complete the work itself, and therefore took responsibility for the issue. It then used its discretion to estimate how much the work would potentially cost. In the absence of any quotes with estimated costs, the landlord would not be expected to continue to increase its offer as it is entitled to ensure its funds are being spent appropriately and accurately. As such, the landlord’s response to this matter was reasonable as it took steps to put her back in the same position she would have been in if the damage had not occurred.
  4. The resident also raised concerns that the leak was as a result of the removal of scaffolding in early 2020. The landlord explained that given the time elapsed since the removal, it was unable to determine whether this was the cause. This was a reasonable response as it is understandable that other issues may have occurred during this time which could have caused the leak, and it would not be expected to determine for certain if the scaffolding was related to the leak in any way given that the leak occurred months later. The landlord explained that the leak was due to a loose bracket in the guttering, and therefore attempted to reassure the resident that the scaffolding was unlikely to have been the cause.
  5. In April 2021 the resident reported smoke coming from her air purifier. The fire brigade attended and disabled the device. The landlord attended five days later, for an electrical audit. In the resident’s complaint she said she was awaiting an update following the appointment. The landlord explained that its contractors tried to arrange a follow up appointment to inspect the electrical unit, but the resident had refused access. It provided contact details for its contractor and asked her to contact them to arrange an appointment.
  6. It is unclear why exactly the landlord needed to arrange a follow up appointment. Nonetheless, the evidence shows it attempted to arrange a suitable time with the resident. The landlord’s internal records show the resident refused access as she wanted the landlord to compensate her for the kitchen work first. It was not unreasonable for the landlord to ask her to make an appointment as it had already tried itself but was unsuccessful. Also, as explained above, the resident is required to grant access as per her tenancy agreement. As such, it was reasonable for it to continue to ask the resident to provide access as an appointment is what she was seeking as part of her complaint.
  7. In the circumstances of this complaint, we would not consider it a failing on the landlord’s behalf for not completing the follow up appointment if the resident would not grant access. The landlord initially attended to inspect within a reasonable time period given that it was not an emergency as the fire brigade had already disabled the device meaning that it would not pose an immediate danger. Therefore, there were no failings on the landlord’s behalf in terms of this aspect of the resident’s complaint.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 55b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the complainant prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint about the damaged wall satisfactorily.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in respect of the electrical inspection.

Recommendations

  1. The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord
    1. reoffer the £135 to the resident if it has not paid this already.
    2. Arrange an inspection of the purifier if it has yet been unable to do so.