Westminster City Council (202205212)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202205212

Westminster City Council

27 January 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

1. The complaint is about:
   1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs to their windows.
   2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of blocked drains.

Background

2. The resident is a leaseholder of the property. The landlord is the freeholder.
3. In April 2021, the resident reported that her windows were leaking, causing rot to the wooden frames and damage to the inside of her home. Additionally, she also reported that a downpipe at the rear of the property was leaking, and the drain below was blocked. The landlord first inspected the downpipe on 19 April 2021, but struggled to identify the cause of the issue. It attended numerous times over the course of 2021. It also inspected the resident’s windows on 16 June 2021. A follow-on appointment was arranged, but the landlord missed that appointment. Another appointment was scheduled for 13 September 2021. However, due to an administrative error, the landlord again failed to attend.
4. The resident submitted a complaint on 20 September 2021, as she was dissatisfied with the lack of progress to both her repairs. She explained that her windows were leaking extensively when it rained. She was also unable to open several of them and could not ventilate her home properly. She stated that the downpipe and broken drain were causing water to collect and stagnate at the rear of the property, as well as causing damage to the brickwork.
5. The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint on 4 October 2021. It stated that its repair service was experiencing delays due to the pandemic. However, it acknowledged that it had failed to communicate effectively with the resident, and apologised for the delay to her repairs. It offered her a total of £205 compensation in recognition of its failings (£105 for time and trouble, £60 for the delay and £40 for the missed appointments).
6. A surveyor attended on 4 October 2021 to assess the window repairs and concluded that they needed to be replaced. An inspection report was published on 9 November 2021, which again concluded that the windows needed to be replaced. The inspection noted that a major works order had not yet been raised, despite the recommendation for the windows to be replaced in October 2021. The resident escalated her complaint on 4 January 2022, due to the lack of progress with her repairs.
7. The landlord continued to investigate the downpipe and on 27 January 2022 found that the pipe and gully in which it was situated needed to be replaced. It again sent a surveyor to assess the windows in February 2022, who concluded as before that the windows needed replacing. The landlord sent its final response on 7 February 2022. It apologised for the delay to the resident’s repairs and acknowledged that there had been a lack of communication. It agreed that the windows needed replacing, and promised that both repairs would be actioned as a priority. It offered a further £85 compensation, in recognition of the fact that the resident’s repairs remained outstanding.
8. In her complaint to this Service, the resident stated that as of July 2022 the repairs had not been completed. She is dissatisfied with the length of time it has taken to resolve these issues. As an outcome, the resident would like the repairs to be completed as soon as possible.

Assessment

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs to their windows.

9. According to the resident’s leaseholder handbook, the landlord is responsible for maintaining the external structure and communal services to the property. This includes external window frames. The resident is required to pay a proportion of the costs of the repairs within her service charge.
10. The landlord has stated that it is its policy to attend routine repairs within 28 working days. While the resident reported her window repairs in April 2021, an appointment was not raised until 16 June 2021. The appointment was scheduled for 8 July 2021, but was not attended by the landlord. The appointment was rescheduled for 4 August 2021 by the landlord, and then again by the resident for 13 September 2021. Due to an administrative error, the landlord again did not attend. The landlord did not inspect the windows until 4 October 2021, six months after the resident raised the repair. This was well outside the landlord’s repair timescales and was a failing.
11. In line with good customer service, a landlord is expected to manage its budget effectively, while balancing its obligations to residents. It was reasonable for the landlord to have inspected the windows to ascertain if they could be repaired rather than replaced. However, the number of times the landlord inspected the same aspect of the window repairs, (while reaching the same conclusion) was excessive. It attended in October 2021, November 2021, February 2022 and June 2022. On each occasion the windows were deemed beyond repair, yet a major works order was not raised until August 2022. It is not clear why the landlord continued to inspect the windows rather than raising a works order. As a result, the resident was left with ineffective windows for longer than necessary and this was a failing.
12. The landlord acted appropriately in its complaint response in February 2022, by acknowledging that the windows needed replacing and apologising for the delay. It also recognised that there had been issues with keeping the resident updated, and that it had missed several repair appointments. The landlord offered a total of £290 compensation to the resident, in recognition of the delays to her repairs and the inconvenience this had caused. It was appropriate to offer the resident financial redress to acknowledge its failings. However, the landlord has since failed to take any tangible steps to resolve the resident’s repairs, which remained outstanding at the time the resident brought her complaint to this Service in July 2022. The landlord needs to ensure that the steps it has promised to take in its complaint response are completed. The fact that it did not was a failing in the circumstances.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of blocked drains

13. According to the resident’s leaseholder handbook, it is the landlord’s responsibility to clear or repair leaks to the rainwater pipes and gutters and to maintain communal aspects of the property. As above, the landlord’s policy is to attend routine repairs within 28 working days.
14. Once the resident reported the issues with the downpipe and drain on 12 April 2021, the landlord acted reasonably by attending promptly on 19 April 2021. However, it struggled to identify the cause of the issue. It attended again on 14 June 2021, and subsequently sent a surveyor to inspect the downpipe on 12 July 2021. The surveyor concluded that the gas team should attend the property, who attended on 4 August 2021. The gas team in turn referred the issue to the plumbing team. Contractors attended the property on 24 September 2021 to replace the bottom section of the downpipe. However, they discovered specialist equipment was required to fix the issue. Contractors again investigated the issue on 1 February 2022, using a camera to see inside the downpipe. They recommended to the landlord that the pipe should be replaced, and a new gully should be installed. However, the works remained outstanding when the resident brought her complaint to this Service in July 2022.
15. It is not necessarily a failing for a repair to take longer than the prescribed 28 working days, if the landlord is continuing to work on the issue and is managing the resident’s expectations effectively. It can also be reasonable for the landlord to attend the property on multiple occasions, if it is struggling to find the correct repair for a complicated issue.
16. However, there are unexplained gaps in the landlord’s efforts, with no activity recorded between September 2021 and February 2022, and again between February and July 2022. It is not apparent why once the landlord became aware of the need to replace the pipe and gully in February 2022, it neglected to do so. The landlord also failed to keep the resident updated on her repairs. This, coupled with the extended timeframe would have added to the perception that the repairs were not advancing. Subsequently, both the delay and the failure to communicate with the resident are failings in the circumstances.
17. Again, the landlord acted appropriately in its complaint response, by acknowledging and apologising for its failure to rectify the resident’s repair issues. It also apologised for the delays she had experienced, and for its lack of communication about her repairs. However, although it promised to resolve the resident’s repair issues, it again failed to take any tangible steps to repair the drain and downpipe. The landlord appears aware that it has failed to provide an appropriate standard of service to the resident, yet there seems to be an internal disconnect when getting the repairs completed. The landlord needs to ensure that once it has upheld a complaint and promised various actions, it follows through with those actions to completion. In this case, the fact that it did not and coupled with the multiple delays, the compensation the landlord offered was inadequate as taken altogether there was maladministration in its overall handling of the complaints.

Determination (decision)

18. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in the way it handled the resident’s reports of repairs to their windows.
19. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in the way it handled the resident’s reports of blocked drains.

Orders

20. Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Pay a total of £690 compensation broken down as follows:
       1. £290 previously offered in its complaint response.
       2. £200 compensation to the resident, in recognition of her distress and discomfort, due to the failure to replace her windows within a reasonable timeframe.
       3. £200 compensation to the resident in recognition of the time and inconvenience of having to pursue the repairs to the resident’s drain and downpipe.
    2. Confirm with the resident a timetable for her major works to take place, if this hasn’t been done already.
    3. Complete the repairs to the resident’s downpipe and drain, if this hasn’t been done already.

The landlord must send evidence of compliance with the Ombudsman’s orders within the four weeks stated above.

Recommendations

21. It is recommended that the landlord assess how it manages actions laid out in its complaint responses. The landlord should create a more effective system of monitoring these actions to completion.