Westminster City Council (202111760)

Back to Top

A picture containing logo Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202111760

Westminster City Council

15 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 the leaseholder’s reports of low water pressure.

Background

  1. The leaseholder owns a maisonette on the fourth and fifth floors of a purpose-built block. The leaseholder lets out the property, the freehold of which is owned by the landlord. The leaseholder has no vulnerabilities recorded.
  2. Following low water pressure being reported by the leaseholder and others on 24 February 2021, a landlord’s contractor attended on 1 March 2021 and recommended that a pump be fitted. On 6 April 2021 the landlord said internal water pressures were the leaseholder’s responsibility, and that the order for the pump had been cancelled. Following unreturned calls, the leaseholder complained on 12 April 2021.
  3. The response on 28 April 2021 apologised for the misinformation and offered £25 for poor communication. Although it was not the landlord’s policy to maintain internal plumbing, it should have advised the leaseholder earlier. The landlord liaised with the water supplier who said there was a burst water main locally and other blocks were also affected.
  4. The leaseholder complained further on 13 May 2021. The response on 16 June 2021 said the water supplier confirmed the ongoing issue to be internal. The water supplier was providing the correct level of water pressure; therefore, the issue was inside the property. This was not the landlord’s responsibility, as stated in the leasehold handbook. The landlord offered £125 compensation, to include a further £100 for the leaseholder’s time and trouble pursuing the complaint. 
  5. The landlord says that the water pressure into the building is above the minimum required and therefore the issue is internal. It notes that the leaseholder’s boiler is not connected to the communal boiler (as others are). The leaseholder is of the opinion that the landlord should still resolve this.

Assessment and findings

  1. The leaseholders’ handbook says at page 33 that the leaseholder is responsible for maintaining the interior of their property excluding any structural items and communal services. Page 34 says that the landlord is responsible for the mains stopcock to the block, repairs burst or leaking pipes up to and including the stopcock and will replace the communal water storage tank and clear blockages to the main soil stack. Repairs to waterpipes beyond the stopcock are the leaseholder’s responsibility. Page 36 says that individual hot water appliances are the responsibility of the leaseholder.
  2. The lease for the property dated 1990, ninth schedule paragraph 1 (ii), shows that the landlord is responsible for pipes, save those such solely installed or used for the purpose of a particular flat, for which the owner is responsible. It follows that any plumbing beyond the stopcock, which is not the responsibility of the water supplier, falls to the leaseholder. This may not be the case for tenants of the landlord, or for properties who receive communal hot water, but is the case for the leaseholder’s property. The leaseholder acknowledges that the issue is internal, and not for the water supplier to resolve. 
  3. This was a frustrating issue for the leaseholder who has employed plumbers to investigate the low-pressure issue and had complaints from her tenants. Resolution of the problem was not helped by the initial wrong advice from the contractor who said it was for the landlord to fit a pump. There was also a mains water pipe burst around the same time, but once resolved, the water supplier has confirmed that the pressure into the building was adequate. 
  4. The water pressure has been investigated by expert personnel from the water supplier, who say the issue is internal, and the Ombudsman has no basis for making a contrary finding. It is noted that the supplier has stated it has no responsibility above the ground, but it does not follow that this then falls to the landlord, in a leasehold property. The lease and leaseholder’s handbook confirm that internal plumbing is the leaseholder’s responsibility.
  5. The landlord has apologised for the poor communication and liaised with the water supplier to identify the source of the problem. It has explained why it is not responsible and this Service can see that this is supported by the terms of the lease. The landlord also offered compensation for the leaseholder’s time and trouble, in accordance with its policy.  This is fair in all the circumstances of the case.  
  6. The Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord took proportionate and appropriate action in relation to investigating the concerns raised by the leaseholder, in accordance with its policies and obligations.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Scheme the landlord made an offer of redress prior to the investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord pay the leaseholder the sum of £125 already offered if it has not yet done so.