Westminster City Council (202125071)

Back to Top

 

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202125071

Westminster City Council

9 September 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:
    1.  contaminated water.
    2. a contractor bleeding in her property.

Jurisdiction

  1. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
  2. After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspect of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:
  • The resident’s reports of a contractor bleeding in her property.
  1. The Ombudsman cannot consider this issue as part of the current complaint investigation. This is in accordance with paragraph 39(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme which states that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, are made prior to having exhausted a member’s [landlord’s] complaints procedure unless if there is evidence of a complaint handling failure and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not acted within a reasonable timescale.
  2. As this is a separate issue to the complaint raised with the landlord through its complaints process, this is not something on which this Service can adjudicate on at this stage, as the landlord needs to be provided with the opportunity to investigate and respond to this aspect of the complaint before the Ombudsman can consider it. The resident will need to contact the landlord and, if appropriate, raise a separate complaint to get these matters resolved. If the resident remains dissatisfied once she has received the landlord’s final response to her complaint, she may be able to refer the matter to the Ombudsman for investigation as a separate complaint at that stage.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord.
  2. The resident has advised that she showed the sediment from the taps to a contractor who attended in late March 2021 or early April 2021 regarding a separate repair issue. The landlord says it has no record of the sediment being reported at this time.
  3. The resident has said that on 17 June 2021, two contractors attended the property and advised her that the communal boiler would need to be descaled.
  4. The resident contacted the landlord on 14 June 2021, to inform it that she had sediment coming from taps in the property.
  5. The landlord booked an appointment for the 8 July 2021 to inspect the property. The inspection subsequently found that the sediment was only affecting the hot water taps. Therefore, the landlord contacted its specialist contractor to investigate the cause.
  6. The landlord states that its contractors attempted to contact the resident on 8 July 2021, 13 July 2021 and 22 July 2021. However, the resident disputes this.
  7. The resident subsequently complained to the landlord on 27 July 2021, stating that she had an outstanding issue with her toilet waste pipe, skirting board in the bathroom and the sediment coming from the taps. The resident stated that she had been provided with numerous repair reference numbers, which she felt was the landlord’s attempt to ‘hide’ the length of time taken for the repairs to be complete.
  8. The resident contacted the landlord on 26 July 2021, enquiring about the descaling of the boiler. The landlord advised her that the repair work had been ‘closed’ as its contractors had been unable to contact the resident to arrange an appointment. The resident disputed this as she said the contractors did not leave voicemails when they called her so she did not know they had tried to call.
  9. The communal boiler was descaled on 31 July 2021.
  10. On 28 October 2021, the landlord issued it stage two complaint response. It explained that it had descaled the boiler, but this had not been effective. The landlord stated that it was looking to renew pipework and filters in the resident’s property to protect the system from dirt, rust and other damaging debris. It believed the work would be completed prior to 29 October 2021. In addition to this, it would also be upgrading the existing hot water system in place, with work due to be started in December 2021. It explained that a confusion in the dates of appointments may be owed to the logging system it used. It apologised for any confusion and stated that work to the waste pipe and skirting board had been scheduled for 4 October 2021, but had to be rescheduled due to the resident having Covid-19. It requested the resident inform it when she was available for an appointment. The landlord offered the resident compensation of £620 for delays and miscommunication regarding the waste pipe and skirting board repairs.
  11. The resident referred this matter to this Service on 14 February 2022. The resident stated that she remained unhappy with the response from the landlord as it used incorrect dates for repairs and communication and also believed the landlord changed repair references in order to confuse the works needing to be carried out. The resident also remained unhappy with the compensation amount offered, as it did not:
    1. Account for the additional costs of living with no water, such as cleaning wipes and takeaways as well as the inconvenience of having to go elsewhere to take showers.
    2. Account for her child’s distress as a result of the repair. She has said her child has health issues which make him more susceptible to illness.
    3. Reimburse her for weekly hot water charges she paid during the period when she was without this service.

As a resolution to her complaint, the resident would like an increased amount of compensation in recognition of the above factors.

Assessment and findings

Policies and procedures.

  1. The tenancy handbook states that, immediate repairs which pose an immediate health and safety risk, such as, a loss of water supply, should be attended to within two hours and made safe within 24 hours. Urgent repairs are identified as jobs including plumbing work. These jobs should be attended to and completed within three days.

 

Assessment.

  1. The resident raised on 14 June 2021, that she had sediment coming from her taps. The repair would not be considered an immediate repair, owing to the fact the resident had not suffered a complete loss of water supply, although the issues with the water supply were understandably inconvenient for her and her family. The landlord subsequently attended the property on 17 June 2021, and identified the boiler required descaling. Therefore, the landlord responded in-line with its policy obligation of three days for urgent repairs.
  2. The landlord attended the property again on 8 July 2021 and identified that the sediment was only affecting the hot water taps. Upon identifying this, the landlord contacted its specialist contractors to identify the repair. This was reasonable, as its internal repairs team was unable to identify the cause of the sediment and therefore, specialists were required.
  3. Based on the evidence available, it was reasonable for the landlord to close the repair in July due to its contractors being unable to contact the resident. It is acknowledged that the resident has said the contractors did not leave voicemails and therefore she did not know they had called. However, the landlord’s records state that the contractors left voicemails. Where there are conflicting accounts of what happened with a lack of supporting evidence to support either account, it is not possible for the Ombudsman as an impartial arbitrator to establish what happened with any certainty. However, it would have been helpful and in line with best practice for the landlord to have attempted to contact the resident by other means, such as by letter or email if it was unable to contact her by phone before closing the repair case and there is no evidence that the landlord did so. This has been taken into account when looking at compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by the delayed repairs.
  4. Landlords are required to consult with leaseholders and issue a Section 20 notice of The Landlord and Tenant Act (s.20) where any one repair costs more than £250. The landlord followed this process when deciding to replace the communal boiler to resolve the repair. This further delay between September 2021 and November 2021 was reasonable due to the landlord’s obligation to issue the s.20. The landlord informed the resident of this process in its stage two complaint response, which was reasonable as it set expectations for when the repair would be completed.
  5. Landlords would not necessarily be expected to offer residents a temporary move if there is a lack of hot water in their property but the landlord should have considered offering temporary water heaters/kettles to help provide hot water and/or offering compensation towards additional electricity costs incurred in heating water by kettle. The landlord would also be expected to offer compensation for the distress and inconvenience of being without hot water for an extended period of time.
  6. In this case, the landlord has acknowledged that there were errors in its handling of the repairs to the resident’s property. Whilst some delays were beyond the landlord’s control, it could have done more to support the resident and to progress the repairs. The landlord has offered £620 compensation in view of this. This amount of compensation is in line with the landlord’s complaints policy which says the landlord will pay compensation of between £500 £2000 per year for distress and inconvenience dependent on the severity, number of people affected and risk to health and safety. The landlord’s offer is also in line with the Ombudsman’s approach to compensation which is set out in our Remedies Guidance (published on our website). The Remedies Guidance suggests that the Ombudsman may award compensation of between £250 and £700 in cases where we have found considerable service failure or maladministration by the landlord, but there may be no permanent impact on the complainant. Examples include failure over a considerable period of time to act in accordance with policy – for example to address repairs. The landlord’s offer of compensation is reasonable taking into account the distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced as well as the likely additional costs she incurred due to not having hot water. As the landlord has paid an appropriate amount of compensation, it does not need to do anything further with regards to the complaint.
  7. The resident remains dissatisfied that the landlord did not offer compensation dating back to April 2021, when the resident stated the water contamination first started. To resolve the complaint the resident would like additional compensation for this period.
  8. It is acknowledged that the resident raised issues regarding the water with a contractor who had visited her property to complete a toilet repair. Whilst the Ombudsman appreciates that the resident informed the contractor, there has been no evidence provided to this Service to suggest that this was ever relayed to the landlord and therefore the landlord remained unaware of the repair and was not able to take any action to address it until the resident contacted the landlord directly to report the repair in June 2021. When contractors attend to complete repairs, they are required to complete a report regarding any work they have completed. However, new repair issues should be reported direct to the landlord in line with its repairs policy and the tenancy agreement. Therefore the landlord was not at fault for its contractor failing to report the repair. Therefore, the landlord was reasonable in not awarding compensation dating back to April 2021.
  9. The resident is unhappy that the landlord has not offered a separate compensation payment for her child, who was also affected by the water issue. When awarding compensation, it is reasonable for the landlord to offer a total amount to its tenant rather than offering different amounts for each member of the household. As the resident is the tenant of the property, she has a legal relationship with the landlord and it is appropriate for any compensation to be paid to her rather than separately to each person in her property. The Ombudsman has taken into account the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident and her child when assessing whether the landlord’s offer of compensation was reasonable. Overall, the landlord’s compensation offer was reasonable, in line with its own complaints policy and the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, as set out above.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 55 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint regarding its response to the resident’s reports of contaminated water satisfactorily.

Recommendations

  1. This Service recommends the landlord pay the resident, the £620 compensation offered through its complaints process, if it has not already done so.