Westminster City Council (202125187)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202125187

Westminster City Council

3 November 2023

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

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
1. Reports of snagging issues following major structural work to the property.
2. The related complaint.
3. Concerns about his contribution to the cost of the works.

Jurisdiction

When he approached this Service, one of the resident’s complaints concerned his liability to pay towards the major work as he felt it was not carried out to a high standard. As this element relates to the payment of service charges, it is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to consider. The resident may wish to apply to the First Tier Tribunal (Property Chambers) to have this matter considered. The First Tier Tribunal will consider whether the service charge is payable, and if so, at what level.
This is in accordance with paragraph 42(e) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme) which says that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, concern the level of service charge.

Background

The resident is the leaseholder of a one-bedroom ground floor flat in a two storey building, the freehold of which is own by the landlord, a local authority.
The residents of the building were decanted from the property, and extensive structural work carried out due to subsidence, between March 2021 and 8 October 2021.
The resident raised a complaint on 11 October 2021 that he was unhappy with the standard of the work. On 22 October 2021 the resident was given the keys to return to the property when the landlord noted he was pleased with the work done.
The landlord responded to the complaint on 27 October 2021 and said that the works had not yet been signed off by the quality manager, but issues raised by the resident previously had been addressed. The worktops the resident had said were damaged were inspected and no bowing was found, and the internal wooden window panels (shutters) would be revisited.
The resident escalated the complaint on 19 December 2021, stating that he disagreed with the landlord’s opinion on the worktops and wooden panels. The landlord’s final response, dated 2 February 2022 ,said that the snagging had been addressed and that it was satisfied that the works had been carried out to an acceptable standard. The landlord explained that the resident should expect to see a visible join where external walls were rendered, and any further issues would be revisited at the end of the 12-month defect period.
The resident remained dissatisfied as he said he wanted a second opinion on the damage to the worktops and the wooden panels replaced.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

This Service cannot make a decision about the standard of work on the resident’s property, as this is beyond the scope of the Ombudsman. We can consider whether the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns was reasonable, by reference to the evidence available. This investigation considers the landlord’s response to the resident’s various snagging issues following the major works, as well as the related complaint submitted.

Assessment

Repairs

The landlord provides a ‘guide to major works projects’ online, which says at section 3 that it will ‘monitor the works to ensure the right standards are being delivered and work is being carried out safely’.
In this case, the resident complained before the work was completed, that ‘the job is horrible, and I am not happy at all’. He asked the landlord to inform the contractors about the issues, and ask them to fix them, although he did not go into further detail at that time.
The landlord then said that it had met the resident on 22 October 2021 when the keys and property were handed over. An internal email said that the meeting went “extremely well” and that the resident was “very pleased with all works done.”
The landlord’s response on 27 October 2021 said that six main issues raised by the resident in his email of 5 October 2021 (not seen by this Service) had been addressed. It further said that several meetings/joint inspections had been planned but cancelled by the resident, but the works had not yet been signed off by the quality manager. It said that the resident’s concerns were noted and it would carry out further checks on the next inspection.
In relation to the specific issues the resident brought to this Service, the landlord said that the interior wooden window panels had been inspected and the manager was satisfied with the work. However, it said it would ask the contractor to remove the overfill of filler and return the panel to how it originally looked, noting that they were in very poor condition prior to the works.
The landlord said that the quality manager had inspected the kitchen worktop the resident said was damaged by heavy planks and was satisfied there was no bowing present.
The resident escalated the complaint on 19 December 2021 when he said he remained unhappy with the external cement finish and the wooden panels and wanted a second opinion regarding the worktop. He also said that there were bubbles on the bedroom walls, and that the gate code had not been changed following the works as promised.
The landlord’s guide to major works says at section 4 that ‘once the works are complete and approved by (the landlord) we will write to confirm the project is moving into the 12-month defects period. The defects period means that any issues that occur with the works during the next 12 months, can be referred back to the contractor to address at no additional cost. The nature of the defect reported will affect how quickly this is attended to. If there is a roof leak to a new roof for example, we will call the contractor back as soon as possible. If the issue relates to something like failing paintwork however, we will log this and pick this up at the end of the defect period’.
In this case, the landlord issued its final response on 2 February 2022 and said it was satisfied with the works. It said there were some snagging issues which had been resolved. It said that the contractor had been instructed to remove the damaged area of concrete outside and match the paint to the existing finish and the resident should expect to see a join in the finish.
The landlord noted that the work was subject to a quality management schedule. It was satisfied the works had been completed to the required standard and as a leaseholder, the resident had the opportunity to challenge costs at a first-tier tribunal if he believed the works were not the required standard. It also stated that repairs to the wooden panelling in the living room had been completed to a satisfactory standard and would be revisited at the end of the 12-month defect period. It stated that it was satisfied that the kitchen work top was level, there were no clear defects within the worktop, and the joints side and rear did not show any visible movement.
Regarding the water damage in the bedroom, the landlord stated that this was identified as condensation due to poor ventilation and lack of heating. The resident was advised to leave window vents open and to arrange to fix the radiator thermostat and refrain from using radiators to dry clothes. It said that it would revisit the issue in four weeks’ time.
The contractor was due to return to the site on 21 January 2022 to carry out the snagging works detailed and, if prevented due to the weather, would make contact to re-schedule. The landlord said that there was a 12-month snagging defect period in place for these works. It would make contact in 10 months to report any issues, an inspection would then take place and if any items needed to be addressed, the contractor would carry out remedial works.
The resident approached this Service in March 2022 and said that he remained dissatisfied as the landlord had left large planks of wood on the worktop which caused it to bow. He said he had shown the landlord photographs (not seen by this Service) which it had accepted but the quality manager disagreed with this, and the resident wanted a second opinion from another contractor. He said that the window panels were removed and refitted and had been damaged during the process and were now very rough, thus, he had asked that they be replaced by the landlord.
With respect to the resident’s assertions about the worktops, no evidence has been provided to this Service to support the damage having been caused by the landlord or its contractors, or that it was agreed the worktop was bowed. For its part, the landlord has said that it inspected the worktops and did not find any damage. This Service concludes on the evidence that the landlord investigated the matter fairly, and there is no basis for finding that there has been any service failure in relation to this issue.
In reference to the wooden panels, the landlord has explained that the panels were already damaged when removed, that it repaired and reinstalled them, but noted that it was possible for some filler to be removed, and it arranged to do this. There is no evidence to suggest service failure in relation to the landlord’s actions in this aspect of the case.
The landlord’s policy for major works says that it will monitor progress to ensure the right standards are being delivered, and that works will be inspected and approved, as they have here. The policy also offers to revisit any issues at the end of the defect period, as the resident has been advised.
There were other items originally raised by the resident which were resolved during the snagging process, and which were not escalated by the resident to this Service but were included in the complaint responses. The landlord’s responses indicate a thorough and systematic approach to the snagging, and the follow up appointments were prompt.
The Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord took proportionate and appropriate action in relation to investigating the concerns raised by the resident; and considering them alongside its service standards, and duties and obligations as a landlord.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s complaint policy says that complaints will be responded to within 10 working days, at both stage 1 and 2 of the complaint process.
In this instance, the first stage complaint was submitted online on 11 October 2021, and responded to on 27 October 2021, which was only two days over the timeframe given. The resident then escalated the complaint on 19 December 2021 and the final response was not issued until 2 February 2022, 20 days over the time frame given by the landlord.
The landlord failed to mention the delay in its final response and there is no evidence that it extended the response period in agreement with the resident. There is also no evidence that it advised the resident that the response would be significantly delayed, outside of the time frame shown on the landlord’s website. In the event, the resident was waiting an additional month for the final response.
Given that the complaint was not upheld, this did not change the outcome for the resident or cause any particular impact in itself, but it is fair in all the circumstances that a nominal sum of compensation be paid as a remedy to this aspect of the complaint.
The sum of £50 would reflect the failure by the landlord to acknowledge the delay in its complaint responses and recognise the inconvenience of it not meeting its published timescale in this instance.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme) there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s concerns about the major works.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s complaint.
In accordance with paragraph 42(e) of the Scheme, the complaint about the resident’s liability to pay towards the major works is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord should:
1. Pay the resident £50 in respect of its delay in responding to the resident’s complaint.
2. Remind salient complaints staff of the correct procedure to ensure the landlord’s complaint process is followed in respect of timescales.
The landlord should provide evidence to this Service that the above orders have been complied with, within four weeks of this determination.