Westminster City Council (202211077)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202211077

Westminster City Council

25 May 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 the landlord’s handling of a leak in the building that affected the resident’s property.

Background

2. The resident is a secured tenant at the property of the landlord. The landlord is a local authority. The property is a flat within a block of flats.
3. The resident reported a leak coming from a property above on 7 July 2022. The landlord attended the property on the same day to investigate. It determined that it was a containable leak coming from a flat above that was affecting several flats below. However, it could not rectify the issue due to being refused access to the flat concerned.
4. The resident raised a complaint on 12 July 2022. She stated that, after several months of renovating and decorating her property, the leak coming from above had damaged the property, including the carpet, living room sealing and wall, bathroom and kitchen walls, corridor sealing, and two storage cupboards. The resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of repairs and explained the impact it had had on her and her family, both mentally and physically. The resident complained of the smell of damp and said that she was worried for her family’s health. She requested “a quick and effective solution,” and she demanded compensation to reflect the stress and inconvenience incurred.
5. On 13 July 2022, the landlord carried out a further inspection and determined that the leak had been caused by the disconnection of bath waste from the above flats. Following access to the property above on 15 July 2022, the landlord identified drainage works were required. Moreover, an asbestos test had to be carried out in advance. The landlord has confirmed that works were completed on 21 July 2022.
6. The landlord issued a complaint response on 27 July 2022. It explained that, following the first reports of a leak on 7 July 2022, it had difficulties identifying the source due to not having access to the property above. It also stated that delays were caused by having to carry out an asbestos test prior to starting works. The landlord apologised for the damage caused to the resident’s home and arranged for a surveyor to visit on 28 July 2022 to inspect internal damages. The landlord stated it would ensure to make good and monitor the situation. It also recommended that the resident could claim for damage to personal belongings, fixtures, and fittings through her own contents insurance. The landlord apologised and partially upheld the complaint. It also stated that it was satisfied that the leak was resolved within its service level agreement.
7. The resident escalated the complaint on 22 August 2022. She reiterated what had happened following her reports of the leak and the impact the events that followed had had on her and her family. She complained about the lack of works carried out by the landlord, stating that this had left her family “mentally and physically drained.” She stated that she was still waiting for the repairs team to contact her to make good the damage and that she had cancelled her family holidays because of this. She also said that when they were awaiting a plasterer, the landlord sent a decorator, causing a further delay. She asked for compensation for all the damages, including for her personal possessions, and for the landlord to repair the property.
8. The landlord issued a final response on 27 September 2022. It advised that the surveyor’s appointment on 28 July 2022, had gone as planned, and that the required repairs had now been carried out. The landlord acknowledged that the resident was dissatisfied with the time it took to resolve the leak, and it advised that contractors had attempted to solve the issue as soon as possible; however, they lacked access to the relevant property, and they had to carry out an asbestos test before completing repairs. The landlord explained that jobs to redecorate were being raised following the surveyor’s visit. It acknowledged the damage caused to the resident’s personal belongings and reiterated its advice for her to claim under her own contents’ insurance. However, it also said that the resident could make a claim via its public liability insurance if she considered that it had acted negligently. The landlord did not uphold the complaint. It apologised for the effects of the leak on the resident’s property and family and offered £20 for sending the wrong operative, resulting in a missed appointment.
9. The resident brought her complaint to this service on 28 September 2022, as she was dissatisfied with the damages caused by the leak and the landlord’s subsequent response.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

10. The resident has stated that the landlord’s handling of the leak has impacted her and her family’s health. However, the Ombudsman cannot draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This is more appropriate for it to be dealt with through the courts as a personal injury claim. The courts can call on medical experts and make legally binding judgements. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience that the situation may have caused the resident.

Policies and procedures

11. The resident’s tenancy agreement states that the resident is responsible for the maintenance and general decoration of her home. It also states that the resident is responsible for her own contents insurance and that the landlord does not provide contents cover for damage to personal possessions, regardless of cause. The landlord is nevertheless responsible for repairs and keeping in good working order, among other things, the structure of the building, the services that supply electricity and heating, and the decoration of the outside. The landlord is also responsible for major plastering work.
12. The resident’s handbook clearly states that residents are advised to get cover for personal belongings against risks such as fire or floods. It advises that residents may not be able to claim on the landlord’s insurance if the damage has not been caused by negligence.

Leak

13. The tenant’s handbook states that the landlord should respond and start works to plumbing works, such as blockages, within twenty-four hours. The evidence indicates that the landlord visited the property on the same day the leak was reported, following its urgent repairs timeframe. Nevertheless, it is not always possible to complete repairs after a first appointment. The landlord was unable to stop the leak as it could not identify its source. It has explained that it could not get access to the property above the resident, where the leak was believed to originate, which exacerbated the delays. The landlord did, however, follow reasonable steps to inspect and make safe.
14. The landlord attended the property again on 11 July 2022 and identified that the leak was coming from stack pipework. However, it did not gain access until the 15 July 2022, when temporary works to stop the leak were carried out. The landlord has explained that specialist works were required as the soil stack was still blocked. Following an asbestos test that was required to be carried out in advance, works were completed on 21 July 2022. It ultimately took ten calendar days to complete repairs, which the landlord has stated is within its service level agreement.
15. The Ombudsman understands that the leak had a detrimental impact on the resident and that the time taken to gain access and carry out specialist asbestos works delayed the resolution of the leak. However, there is a distinction between a reasonable delay and an unreasonable delay. Given the difficulty in accessing the property where the leak originated, the complexity of the works, and the asbestos test required, the time taken by the landlord to stop the leak was reasonable and in line with its policies.
16. The resident has complained about the internal damages incurred in her property as a result of the leak. As damages were not caused by the resident’s negligence or fault, the landlord would be responsible for carrying out its repair obligations as normal. The landlord has stated that all electrics were reinstated by 26 July 2022. Moreover, a surveyor attended the resident’s property on 28 July 2022, and inspected internal damages and arranged for appropriate repairs to be carried out. The evidence suggests the landlord took reasonable steps to repair the damage caused to the resident’s home.
17. The resident complained about the pace of these repairs in her escalation request, where she stated that no repairs had been completed to date, and that “jobs were raised incorrectly.” While these were evidently not completed in the timeframe hoped for by the resident, it is not evident that they were unduly delayed, aside from an incorrect contractor attending. It appropriately acknowledged that there had been confusion with one appointment where a decorator instead of a plasterer attended. It apologised for the inconvenience and offered £20 in compensation to the resident in accordance with its compensation policy regarding missed appointments. While this missed appointment would have been frustrating and added a short delay to the repairs, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, the impact was minimal, and the level of compensation offered by the landlord amounted to reasonable redress for this error.
18. The evidence suggests that the landlord communicated promptly with the resident, provided updates on the state of the works, and made proactive efforts to solve the issues raised. Nothing in the evidence suggests that the landlord failed to comply with its obligations.
19. The resident has claimed compensation for personal possessions, such as contents within cupboards and fixtures and fittings damaged by the water and subsequent damp. The landlord has explained throughout its internal complaint procedure that it is unable to reimburse for personal belongings, and advised the resident to claim through her own contents insurance. The resident’s handbook clearly states that residents are advised to get cover for personal belongings against risks such as fire or floods. It advises that residents may not be able to claim on the landlord’s insurance if the damage has not been caused by negligence. The landlord’s decision was in line with its policies.
20. The resident also complained about missing family holidays while waiting for repairs to be arranged. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s frustration and apologised for the inconvenience. However, it explained that it was unable to offer compensation for this issue, as it is required for residents to provide access for repairs to be carried out. It is under the resident’s obligations to do this, and therefore, it does not constitute a failure by the landlord.

Determination

21. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) the landlord has offered redress to the complainant prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolved the complaint satisfactorily.

Recommendations

22. It is recommended that the landlord pay the sum of £20 already offered, if it has not already done so.