Westminster City Council (202111322)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202111322

Westminster City Council

1 August 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 response to:
    1. The resident’s report of a leak at her property.
    2. The associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. The property is a maisonette. The resident is partially sighted and has made the landlord aware of this.
  2. In September 2020 the landlord’s contractor (Contractor A) converted the resident’s bathroom to a shower room. On 28 June 2021 the resident reported a leak at her property to the landlord. The landlord’s plumbing contractor (Contractor B) resolved the leak that day. The resident raised a complaint later that day. She said Contractor B had told her that the leak was due to Contractor A not connecting the waste pipe during the shower room installation. The resident said she wanted Contractor A to be made aware that this was “not good practice”. As the leak had been severe and gone through the ceiling in the shower room (into the lounge below) and damaged her belongings she also wanted compensation, for the damage to be “rectified” and for the landlord to provide a “heater” to dry out the room. The following day the landlord emailed the resident to say she would receive a stage one complaint response by 13 July 2021.
  3. On 1 July 2021 the resident called the landlord to explain that the reason she needed a dehumidifier was that the damp was bad for her health. On 2 July 2021, following a telephone conversation with the resident about her complaint, the landlord emailed to a surveyor would assess the damage and arrange for any remedial works to be carried out. It apologised for any “stress, inconvenience and frustration caused. It said “As agreed with yourself, following our phone conversation I will now put this down to an enquiry”. The complaint was then closed. The surveyor visited on 6 July 2021 and raised a job for a dehumidifier to be sent to the resident.
  4. During July 2021 the resident contacted the landlord a number of times to chase up the delivery of the de-humidifier and the repair works. She explained that she had requested the dehumidifier as she had multiple ailments “one of which is my lungs. I cannot stay in with damp and mould”. The de-humidifier was delivered on 19 July 2021. On 22 July 2021 a second surveyor (Surveyor 2) went out to inspect the property and noted mould was present. On 2 August 2021 the resident rang the landlord to say that the mould should be addressed before the remedial work started. Surveyor 1 attended the property that day and, as the resident declined his offer to clean the mould off, himself, he added it to existing work order. The landlord wrote to the resident to confirm that it would address the mould and complete plastering work on 13 August 2021 and that painting would take place once the plaster dried. On 16 August 2021 it would repaper the wall and prepare the walls for painting, and that further appointments may be needed to complete the work.
  5. On 19 August 2021 the landlord reopened the resident’s complaint after the Citizen’s Advice Bureau contacted it for an update, on the resident’s behalf. It said she would receive a response by 3 September 2021.On 8 September 2021 the landlord raised a work order for the painting after the resident reported it had not bene done yet. In its stage one complaint response on 20 September 2021, the landlord apologised for the delay in delivering the de-humidifier and the delay in painting the living room, which it explained was due to contractor accidentally omitting painting from the work order. It awarded £235 compensation in recognition of the delays and the distress and inconvenience caused and the cost of running a de-humidifier. The response also referred to two work orders for a bath and a stopcock, which were not connected to the resident’s property.
  6. The resident escalated the complaint as the stage one complaint response had not addressed the damage caused to her property by the leak, the delays in responding to her complaint and had referred to two work orders which were not connected to her. The landlord said it would respond by 12 November 2021. In its stage two complaint response on 30 November 2021, the landlord apologised for the breakdown in communication that led to the complaint being closed initially, for the misinformation given about the two work orders in its stage one complaint response, and for the delays in providing both complaint responses. It awarded an additional £220 compensation in recognition of its complaint handling failures. It also explained that it does not compensate for damage for items as residents are expected to have contents insurance and it signposted the resident to its public liability insurance claims process, if she felt it had been negligent.  The resident contacted this Service as she was unhappy with the landlord’s handling of the complaint, including the level of compensation and felt she had been unfairly asked to complete the painting herself originally, with no regard for her disability.  

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation.

  1. The resident has referenced how the landlord’s failure to provide a dehumidifier and complete remedial repairs promptly, impacted her health. The Ombudsman cannot draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This is because we cannot establish whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s actions and/or inaction and the resident’s health. This would be more appropriately dealt with as a personal injury claim through the courts or the landlord’s liability insurer. 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.  However consideration has been given to the distress and inconvenience the resident experienced as a result of any errors by the landlord as well as the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about her health.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s report of a leak at her property.

  1. When the resident first reported the leak at her property on 28 June 2021, the landlord acted appropriately by responding to it as an immediate work priority, which requires attendance within a 2–4-hour time interval, and by resolving the leak that day. The resident made a complain that , which made the landlord aware of the damage caused by the leak, and requested a “heater” to dry out the property. The landlord acted appropriately by contacting the resident on 2 July 2021, to discuss her complaint and arranging for a surveyor to inspect the property to confirm what remedial repairs were needed. It would also have been helpful for the landlord to have signposted the resident to its insurance team at this point, as her complaint made it clear that she believed the leak was due to errors made by Contractor 1 when installing the shower room.  
  2. However it was reasonable for the landlord to ultimately refer the resident to make a claim to its liability insurer. Landlords are entitled to use liability insurance to manage the cost of negligence claims and the landlord would not be expected to consider a claim for damage to the resident’s possessions outside the insurance process. The Ombudsman does not have jurisdiction over insurance matters and therefore we cannot comment on the outcome of insurance claims.
  3. Once the surveyor visited the property on 6 July 2021 and requested that dehumidifier be delivered to dry out the property so that remedial repairs could be carried out, it would have been appropriate for the dehumidifier to be delivered promptly. However, the humidifier was not delivered until 19 July 2021. This was an unreasonable length of time for the resident to wait, particularly as she had chased up its delivery several times and had explained that the reason she had requested it was that she had a lung condition and could not stay with “damp and mould”. The repairs could also not be completed until the property had dried out so the delay in supplying a humidifier impacted the length of time the resident waited for the repairs to be completed too. Therefore, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s report of a leak at her property.
  4. Once the property had dried out it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have completed the remedial repairs as soon as possible However, although some of the work was completed in August 2021, the resident had to contact the landlord on 8 September 2021, as the painting had not been completed. The resident has expressed concern to this Service that the landlord was aware of her disability and yet had unreasonably expected her to do the painting. However, the landlord’s records confirm that this is not the case, and that the landlord had requested that the contractor do the painting but an admin error meant this instruction was not passed on by the contractor to its operative. This was further service failure. Once the resident made the landlord aware that the painting had not been completed, it acted appropriately by raising a work order for the job. However, it is noted that the resident has informed this Service that a neighbour agreed to carry out the painting rather than her wait any longer.
  5. As the delivery of the humidifier was delayed, which then delayed the remedial work, and as there was then further delay in completing the painting, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s report of a leak at her property. In its complaint responses the landlord acted appropriately by apologising for these delays and awarding compensation for these failures as follows:
    1. £13 for the delays in delivering the dehumidifier between 10-19 July (based on £500 pro rata).
    2. £13 for the distress and inconvenience the delays between 10-19 July caused (based on £500 pro rata).
    3. £22 for the delays experienced between 31 August – 16 September under job reference 3287171 (based on £500 pro rata).
    4. £22 for the distress and inconvenience the delays between 31 August – 16 September caused (based on £500 pro rata).
    5. £125 for the extra costs incurred by running the dehumidifier at your address between 19 July – 13 August (based on £5 per day)
    6. £40 for the new wallpaper
  6. Although this Service considers the majority of the compensation awarded to be fair and in line with the landlord’s compensation policy, the Ombudsman does not consider the payment amount of £26 (£13 for the delay in delivering the dehumidifier and £13 for the distress and inconvenience it caused), to be fair or reasonable as it does not take into account the resident’s personal circumstances, that she had explained that because of her illness she felt the dehumidifier was needed promptly or that she was actively chasing its delivery. It also does not take into account the fact that the delay in delivering the dehumidifier had a knock on effect of delaying the remedial repair work. The landlord’s compensation policy allows it to use a pro-rated yearly amount of £500-2000 for delays in repairs, and distress and inconvenience and the landlord has used those figures to calculate the £13 compensation amounts (based on £500 per year for each). However, the landlord’s compensation policy also allows it to make discretionary payments for service failure in order to settle complaints. In circumstances such as this case where the service failure is of a relatively short duration but caused significant distress and inconvenience to the resident, this Service considers that it would be fairer to award a discretionary payment in this case rather than calculate a pro-rated yearly amount.
  7. This Service believes that £200 is a fair and reasonable amount of compensation to award in recognition of the delay in providing a dehumidifier and the distress and inconvenience this caused. This amount is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance (published on our website), which recommends payments of £50-250 for cases where there has been service failure which had an impact on the complainant but was of short duration, where the impact experienced by the complainant could include distress and inconvenience, time and trouble, disappointment, loss of confidence, and delays in getting matters resolved. As the landlord has already awarded £26, that will be deducted from the £200 and the difference of £174 should be awarded to the resident in addition to the £455 already awarded.
  8. During the complaints process the resident told the landlord she was partially sighted and had a lung condition. The resident has informed this Service of additional health conditions. As it is not clear if the landlord is aware of all of the resident’s health conditions, this Service believes it would be helpful for the landlord to contact the resident to ensure that it has a full, up to date record of any disabilities, health conditions and vulnerabilities.

The landlord’s complaint handling.

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy states that “Complaints will generally be acknowledged within 2 working days. At Stage 1, we aim to provide a response in 10 working days. At Stage 2, we aim to provide a response in 20 working days. Some complaints may need longer to investigate and where this is the case a holding response will be sent explaining the reason for the delay and when they should receive a full response.”
  2. When the resident raised her complaint on 28 June 2021 the landlord acted appropriately by registering it as a formal complaint and advising that she would receive a stage one response by 13 July 2021. The landlord acted appropriately by contacting the resident to discuss the complaint and arranging for a surveyor to inspect the property. However, following the telephone conversation with the resident, the landlord closed the complaint. The landlord believed that this had been agreed on the telephone call but the resident disputes this. Although this Service is not privy to what was said on the call, the email that the landlord sent to the resident following the call states “As agreed with yourself, following our phone conversation I will now put this down to an enquiry”. It would have been more appropriate for the landlord to have stated clearly that the complaint had been closed, as although its officers may understand that putting something “down to an enquiry” meant it had been de-escalated from a complaint to an enquiry and no complaint response would be issued, it is not reasonable to expect residents to have that same level of understanding. The lack of clarity in the email meant that the resident was not aware that her complaint had been closed and resulted in her seeking advice from Citizen’s Advice service about the lack of complaint response. Therefore, there was service failure by the landlord in its complaint handling.
  3. Once the Citizen’s Advice Bureau contacted the landlord about the complaint, it acted appropriately by re-opening the complaint and advising the resident that it would issue a stage one response by 3 September 2021. It took appropriate steps to advise the resident that the response date would be extended to 10 September 2021 due to staff absence. However, the response was not issued until 20 September 2021 and there is no record of any further contact from the landlord to the resident to explain that the response was going to be delayed beyond 10 September 2021. As this was not in line with its complaints policy there was further service failure by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling
  4. In its stage one complaint response on 20 September 2021 the landlord took appropriate steps to apologise for the delay in providing a dehumidifier and painting the lounge and awarded £235 compensation (as discussed previously). However, it failed to respond to the resident’s concerns about compensation for damaged items and also failed to address its delay in responding to the complaint. It also made an error in including information about two work orders that were not connected to the resident at all, which meant that its response was very confusing. Therefore, there was further service failure by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling. Its stage two complaint was originally due to be issued by 12 November 2021. It was eventually issued on 30 November 2021, and as the landlord did not make the resident aware that there would be a delay, until 17 November 2021 (five days after the response was due) and then responded four days after the extended response date of 26 November 2021 there was further service failure by the landlord.
  5. In its stage two complaint on 30 November 2021 the landlord took appropriate steps to acknowledge the resident’s concerns about the damage to her possessions and acted appropriately by signposting her to its own insurer if she felt that the leak was a result of its negligence. This was appropriate as she had raised concerns that the leak was a result of errors made by Contractor A, when installing the shower room. It also acted appropriately by apologising for its complaint handling failures, which included providing information about the wrong work orders in its stage one response, closing down the original complaint, and the delays in responding to the complaint at both stages of the complaints process.  It increased its compensation amount by £220. This included £100 for the way the complaint has been handled and the delay in providing a response at stage one, £100 for the inaccurate information about work orders in its stage one response, and £20 for the delay in providing its stage two response. This Service considers that to be reasonable redress for the landlord’s service failures in respect of its complaint handling, as £220 is in line with the £50-250 suggested in the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for instances of service failure resulting in some impact on the complainant, which could distress and inconvenience, time and trouble, disappointment, loss of confidence, and delays in getting matters resolved. 

 Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s report of a leak at her property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 55 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, in respect of its complaint handling, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves that part of the complaint satisfactorily.

Orders

  1. Within four weeks of the date of this decision the landlord is ordered to pay the resident an additional £174 in compensation in recognition of its service failure in respect of its response to the resident’s report of a leak at her property. This amount is in addition to the £455 already awarded.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord is recommended to contact the resident to ensure that the information it holds about her disabilities, health conditions or vulnerabilities is up to date.