Westminster City Council (202219355)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202219355

Westminster City Council

11 March 2024

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 resident’s complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s handling of requests for repairs to a leaking communal roof, including associated repairs to damage caused to the resident’s property.
2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

The resident has a leasehold for a 2 bed flat in a building owned by the landlord. The flat is located under a flat roof which is used by residents of the building as a communal terrace. There is a service charge payable by the resident for maintenance and upkeep of the building and other amenities.

Leaking roof

The resident reported a leak into his flat from the roof in January 2022. Repair records show the resident chased the landlord for an update on the progress of works several times in February and March 2022, with the resident explaining that water leaked into his property whenever it rained and the walls and ceiling of one of his bedrooms were being damaged. In March 2022, the resident told the landlord that the leak was also affecting his boiler.
A consultation over communal roof repairs with other leaseholders at the building, under section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, took place and ended on 22 June 2022. Repair records show the landlord approved repairs to the roof on 11 July 2022 with repairs finished on 21 July 2022.
On 15 August 2022, the resident told the landlord’s out of hours repairs team that there was now a very significant leak from the roof, that the leak was flooding his property and the electrical light fittings had been affected. The landlord told the resident it could not arrange emergency roof repairs due to the time of day, but agreed to send an electrician to make the electrics safe. An electrician attended later that day and removed the light fittings.
On 16 August 2022, the resident called the landlord 3 times during the day to chase the roof repairs. He explained the leak had worsened and was now affecting most of his property. The landlord advised the issue was raised as an urgent repair and a temporary fix would take place later that day. By the evening, as the landlord had not attended to fix the problem, the resident called the out of hours repairs team who told him it could not arrange emergency roof repairs and repairs had been arranged for 2 days time. Internal correspondence shows that repair orders relating to the roof had been passed to abseilers. The out of hours team arranged for a carpenter to go to the resident’s property. The carpenter attended later that day and told the resident he could not fix the issue as it was clearly a problem with the roof. The carpenter placed a note on the landlord’s repair records which stated that water was coming into the property from the light fitting in the front room and the problem appeared to be caused by poorly laid tiles on the roof which had no grouting and this left water standing between the tiles and the roof base. The note also stated that ‘[i]mmediate attention’ was required ‘as further rain will cause [a] severe problem’.
On 17 August 2022, the landlord inspected the roof and noted that repairs done in July 2022 were of a very poor standard, that water pooled in the roof when it rained, and that the roof tiles had not been sealed with a waterproof coat.
On 18 August 2022, the resident chased the landlord for an update on repairs. Internal correspondence shows the landlord chased its contractor for an update and it was told repairs would be carried out by the next day, weather permitting. The resident then contacted his local councillor about the situation, who agreed to chase the landlord for an update the next day.
On 19 August 2022, the ceiling in the resident’s bedroom collapsed around the early morning. This was reported to the landlord’s out of hours team, who told the resident to call back later to report the issue when the day team had taken over. The local councillor contacted the landlord to insist that repairs were done that day. The landlord sent a plumber to the property on the same day, who also identified that the issue was caused by a leak coming from the flat roof and that tiles appeared to have not been laid properly. The plumber contacted the landlord who told them a roofer was coming out later that day. The resident’s property was then inspected by the landlord, who identified there was a collapsed ceiling, water leaking in through a light fitting, and damaged plasterwork. An inspection of the roof also identified missing tiles, damaged flashing, spare tiles left wedged in a gap at the edge of the roof which posed a risk to occupants and passersby if they fell, and issues with guttering. The landlord placed a tarpaulin over the roof as a temporary fix, cleared debris from the resident’s property, and gave the resident sandbags.
On 22 August 2022, the abseilers attended the property. The following day, internal landlord correspondence indicates questions were asked as to why roof repairs had been handed to abseilers.
Another contractor and surveyor were appointed on 23 August 2022 to assess the damage from the leak and carry out repairs. Inspection reports show that concrete ceiling slabs appeared to have cracked due to water damage and steel supporting beams had become exposed and appeared to be corroded. The local councillor asked the landlord if the resident and other leaseholders would be charged for repairs, with the landlord confirming it had a responsibility to repair the roof and that it was taking steps to resolve this. The resident was informed he was responsible for arranging repairs for internal damage but that he could claim on the landlord’s buildings insurance to recover costs.
Further leaks and a total loss of electricity at the resident’s property were reported on 25 August 2022. Contractors attended on the same day to remove water that had accumulated on the tarpaulin and reattached it to stop further water penetration. An electrician attended in the afternoon but the resident was told that no safety checks could be done as this was the responsibility of the leaseholder. The landlord queried this on 26 August 2022 and sent the electrician back to do complete safety checks.
In early September 2022, the remains of the resident’s ceiling were removed and a structural survey took place to assess the extent of the damage and what remedial works were required.
A survey report was prepared on 24 October 2022. It identified evidence of extensive water ingress in one bedroom ceiling and that the ceiling was very wet. It noted the ceiling under the flat roof was made of a solid slab of steel joists with concrete infill, with the steel joist in the area affected by the leak showing significant corrosion. The survey drew a link between failed waterproofing on the roof with the leak and corrosion and identified that significant structural repairs were needed. The report recommended installing new sections to support the concrete slab ceiling to take the load off supporting steel joists (although this would lower the ceiling height in the resident’s bedroom and repairs to the roof were still required), or replace the slab with a new flat roof structure, with the ceiling only temporarily lowered until works were finished. It also recommended that other flat roof structures in the building were inspected for similar defects.
On 27 October 2022, the landlord accepted the findings in the survey, appointed the surveyor to carry out the specialist works recommended in the survey and agreed to proceed with the option where the ceiling was permanently lowered. Internal correspondence recommended that the survey report was shared with the landlord’s asset strategy department as other roofs may need to be assessed for corrosion.
Works to the roof and the resident’s property were finished in December 2022, with an inspection of the quality of the works taking place in February 2023.
The resident has told this Service he wants the landlord to be held to account for the way in which it has handled the leaking roof, compensation for distress caused by the issue, and compensation for the lowering of his ceiling by 4 to 5 inches as a result of the roof/ceiling repair.

Complaint

The resident made a formal complaint on 16 August 2022 about how the landlord had handled repairs to the leaking roof. The complaint detailed the resident’s contact with the landlord’s repairs teams, explained that the situation was distressing and that he had had to take time off work to deal with the issue. He asked that the roof was fixed urgently. An acknowledgement of this complaint was sent to the resident on 18 August 2022 and a response was promised by 1 September 2022.
An acknowledgement that the landlord had missed its deadline to provide a stage 1 response was sent to the resident on 9 September 2022, stating a response would be provided no later than 18 September 2022.
A stage 1 response was issued on 15 September 2022. The landlord stated it acknowledged the leak had caused damage to the resident’s property but that its contractors had made every effort to locate and resolve the issue within timescales. £20 compensation was offered for the delay in providing a complaint response.
The resident asked for escalation of his complaint on 19 September 2022. He gave the following reasons:
1. He did not want to pay for the defective repairs carried out in July 2022.
2. Service charges paid while the issue was ongoing should be refunded.
3. The landlord had not considered offering compensation for distress caused by alleged negligent upkeeping of the building.
4. There was no acknowledgement of the poor quality of the repairs done in July 2022, noting that ‘every individual […] who has seen the roof [says they are] some of the worst workmanship of all time.’
5. There was no acknowledgement or consideration of delays in handling the emergency works or that appropriate action only took place after the intervention of the local councillor.
6. There was no acknowledgement that the landlord repeatedly sent inappropriate contractors to carry out repairs.
An acknowledgement of the escalation request was sent to the resident on 20 September 2022, with a response promised by 18 October 2022.
A Stage 2 response was issued on 7 November 2022. The points raised by the resident at escalation were summarised as a request for a service charge refund, to not have to pay for defective repairs carried out in July 2022, and compensation for distress. A service charge refund was refused but the landlord did agree that no charge would be made to leaseholders for the defective repairs. The resident’s claim on building insurance was acknowledged and the resident was also directed to make a claim on the landlord’s public liability insurance. It acknowledged there was a delay in assessing the initial leak in January 2022 and that there were delays in starting consultation with leaseholders, whereby works could have potentially started in late March 2022 if there had been no delays. It also acknowledged that an overall avoidable delay of 5 months had occurred, and that the resident’s property would have been damaged in that period if there had been heavy rain. £500 compensation was offered for delays in repairs and a further £20 offered for delays with providing complaint responses (this was in addition to £20 previously offered).
The resident approached this Service on 23 November 2022 to ask for an investigation. On 2 June 2023, the landlord told this Service it had increased its stage 2 offer of compensation to a total of £650.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident has told this Service that part of his desired outcome is to be compensated for the landlord altering the dimensions of his property without consent. Although we acknowledge that the ceiling of the resident’s bedroom was permanently lowered, this Service cannot issue a binding determination on whether the landlord has ‘derogated from grant’ (i.e. that the landlord has done something which has substantially deprived the resident of a benefit granted by the landlord). The resident may wish to seek independent legal advice regarding this issue.

The landlord’s handling of requests for repairs to a leaking communal roof, including associated repairs to damage caused to the resident’s property

The resident’s lease states that:
1. The landlord will manage the building in a proper and reasonable manner.
2. The landlord is not liable or responsible for damage, injury, or loss suffered by the resident due to a defect in the building or caused by neglect or misconduct by its employees or contractors.
3. The landlord will keep the main structure of the building in good and substantial repair and condition, and to manage the building with the intention of keeping it in a condition similar to its present state and condition.
The landlord’s tenant’s handbook states that a target time will be given when a repair is reported. Emergency repairs, which are issues which pose an immediate health and safety risk, should be responded to within 2 to 4 hours. Urgent repairs, which include plumbing issues and blockages, are responded to within 24 hours. Non-urgent repairs, including structural work and roofing, do not have a specified response time.
The landlord has covered its failings regarding the delays in carrying out repairs following the initial leak in January 2022 in its stage 2 complaint response. This Service considers the complaint response on this aspect of the leak to be a fair examination and assessment of the issue. This investigation has therefore considered what went wrong after completion of roof repairs in July 2022.
It is unclear if the roof repairs in July 2022 were quality checked by the landlord after completion. Comments and correspondence by other contractors who inspected the roof after the resident’s report of severe leaks in August 2022 imply that no quality checking was done as all contractors, including those who had no specialism in roofing, all identified missing tiles, a lack of drainage, and a lack of waterproof sealing to the roof. The Ombudsman considers that it would have been reasonable for the landlord to inspect the repairs carried out in July 2022 to see if they had been completed to a satisfactory standard. This would have ensured that leaseholders were being provided value for money, given the fact that they were being recharged for the works, and it could have picked up the issues with the roof identified by the resident and other contractors after the major leak in August 2022.
The response to the leaking roof in August 2022 was delayed, given the extent of the issue, and ineffective. The resident has told this Service that at the worst point of the leak, he had to empty and replace buckets every 5 to 10 minutes to contain the water coming into his property and that he had no sleep for 3 days trying to tackle the issue. The leak should have been classed as an emergency repair and immediate steps should have been taken to at least make the resident’s property safe and mitigate against the leak. Although the landlord did send an electrician to make the electrics safe promptly, little else was done to help the resident tackle the leak and prevent the situation deteriorating. This is a failure of the landlord to manage the building in a proper and reasonable manner, and a failure to follow the repair target times in the tenant’s handbook.
It is concerning that the out of hours repairs team was not able to arrange appropriate repairs or even mitigate the issue and told the resident to contact the daytime team instead. This Service appreciates that tackling emergency or urgent repairs relating to a structural issue out of normal working hours is very challenging, but the landlord should have ensured that adequate steps were taken to make the property safe if there were going to be delays in carrying out repairs. It is inappropriate that the out of hours service insisted the resident contacted the daytime service to report further issues; both teams should have communicated effectively with each other and made sure there were adequate handovers of reports and updates when switching between daytime and out of hours services. Failure of effective communication between teams in this case led to the resident having to repeatedly chase repairs himself, and contributed to avoidable delays in carrying out effective repairs.
Once the extent of the leak became apparent, the landlord should have acted quickly and not relied on recalling the original contractor to remedy the poor quality repairs. Internal correspondence shows that the landlord was aware of the delay in the original contractor’s response and, given the urgency of the situation, it should have made alternative arrangements with another contractor as soon as possible to ensure that repairs were carried out quickly. Although the landlord was entitled to challenge the original contractor on the quality of its works, this led to another avoidable delay in carrying out repairs.
The landlord initially acted appropriately by sending out an electrician to make the light fitting in the resident’s property safe, but it failed to follow this up by arranging for an urgent inspection of the roof and for temporary repairs to take place. Despite being aware that the issue was linked to the roof, the landlord sent several contractors who did not specialise in roof repairs to inspect the leak, the majority of whom agreed there was an issue with the roof but could not take steps to fix it. Due to the nature of the leak, the landlord should have sent an inspector or surveyor to determine which trades or contractors would be required to complete the work. This would have avoided delays and allowed specialist contractors to carry out repairs in a logical sequence.
This Service notes that the landlord’s officers who attended at the property on 19 August 2022 took quick and appropriate action once they became aware that roofers were not going to attend that day and should be acknowledged for the steps they took to mitigate the leak. Although it is clearly not ideal to use a tarpaulin as a temporary repair for a roof, taking this step would have restricted further water leaking into the resident’s property and prevented the situation from getting much worse.
The tarpaulin should have been monitored after this point to ensure that it remained an effective stopgap measure until repairs were carried out. Failure to monitor this led to further leaks on 25 August 2022, although the landlord again responded quickly to the resident’s report and resolved issues with the tarpaulin. The electrician sent to check electrics on this date should have been informed that the landlord was bearing responsibility for the leak, but the landlord did resolve the issue with the electrician refusing to carry out checks quickly and got the checks done within 24 hours.
Surveys and remedial works were carried out effectively and, given the extent of the repairs required, fairly quickly. However, the resident should have been informed of the choice between lowering his bedroom ceiling temporarily or permanently and been able to indicate a preference to the landlord. Failing to inform or consult on what works would be carried out led to the dimensions of the property being permanently altered to the upset of the resident.
It is unclear whether the landlord checked other properties under the roof for signs of leaking as per the recommendation in the surveyor’s report. This Service has seen evidence that a leak in the same roof was reported by another resident after the survey but before repairs were completed. This report has therefore ordered the landlord to either provide this Service with an assurance that other flat roof structures in the building have been inspected, or arrange inspections of the other flat roofs in the building as soon as possible.
It is positive that the landlord has agreed to not charge the resident or other leaseholders for the repairs carried out in July 2022 or for the remedial works carried out in December 2022, and that it has acknowledged many of the failings identified in this report. However, the landlord must learn from its mistakes in this case and take robust steps to ensure similar events do not happen again.
Due to the landlord’s failure to quality check roof repairs after works in July 2022, delays in the landlord providing an appropriate response to requests for emergency repairs, and failing to consult with the resident over repairs which would permanently alter the dimensions of his property, this Service has found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of requests for repairs to a leaking communal roof, including associated repairs to damage caused to the resident’s property. This Service has also made an order for compensation to address delays and poor practice in handling the August leak, the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident and to recognise the time and trouble taken when chasing repairs.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

The landlord’s complaints policy sets out a two stage process. Complaints are acknowledged within 2 working days and responses provided at both complaint stages in 10 working days.
The landlord’s compensation policy states that the general rule is that a resident should be restored to the position they were in before the service failure occurred. Compensation should be considered in the following scenarios:
1. Where a complaint has been received due to the landlord’s actions and where a resident has suffered loss or been severely inconvenienced by a service failure.
2. Where damp or water leaks have resulted in the loss of use of a room.
The compensation policy also states that compensation needs to take account of all of the facts of the case and must be individually assessed. It suggests that quantifiable financial loss (i.e. costs incurred by the resident due to the landlord’s acts or omissions), lost opportunities, distress, and time and trouble in pursuing a complaint should all be considered. If contractors are responsible for the issue, the policy states that the contractor should follow the compensation policy and settle compensation payments via the landlord, with the landlord making settlement directly with the resident.
Guidance in the compensation policy states that for increased electricity costs due to dehumidifiers being issued by the landlord, compensation at £2.50 per dehumidifier multiplied by number of days used should be offered.
The policy states that the impact on the resident should be considered when assessing compensation, with awards banded as follows:
1. Low impact – up to £250, covering situations where there has been an impact on a resident but it was for a short period of time with a low level of inconvenience and/or distress.
2. Medium impact – between £250 and £700, covering there had been greater impact but for a short period of time with a moderate degree of inconvenience or distress. Repeated failures of the landlord to address the issue, even for a low impact issue, could lead to a medium impact award.
3. High impact – £700 and above, covering where the landlord has recognised there was maladministration which has had a severe long-term impact on the resident.
Both the initial complaint and the escalation request were acknowledged within 2 working days. However, the Stage 1 response was issued 23 working days after initial complaint and 11 working days after the date which it initially promised to deliver a response. It is positive that the landlord informed the resident about a delay in providing a Stage 1 response, but this was 6 working days after the response had been due. The Stage 2 response was provided 35 working days after the escalation request; this Service has not been provided with evidence that the resident was contacted about the delay in the Stage 2 response. The timescales for both complaint responses were not in accordance with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code or the landlord’s complaints policy. These delays would have been frustrating for the resident, left him unsure about where he stood with his complaint, and damaged the landlord/leaseholder relationship.
The landlord’s Stage 1 response addressed the immediate issues at the resident’s property with regards to the August 2022 leak and offered an apology for the delay in its response, although it did not address the history of the leak up until this point or issues with handling repairs effectively during the August leak. The response was apologetic and helpful, setting out how the landlord was going to address the damaged roof and carry out internal structural repairs. It also advised the resident to make a claim on the building’s insurance. However, it did not offer any compensation for distress and inconvenience caused by poor handling of the repairs, although some compensation was offered for the delay in the complaint response. This is a failure of the landlord to fully consider the points raised by the resident during the complaints process and to apply its compensation policy to the complaint.
The landlord’s Stage 2 response acknowledged the points raised by the resident in his escalation request, is apologetic in tone, and directed the resident to make a claim on the landlord’s public liability insurance for any damages or loss caused by negligence. It also fully considered the period between the initial roof leak report and the completion of the initial repairs, offering compensation in the medium impact band. However, it did not consider failings in how the landlord handled the leak in August 2022, the impact on the resident caused by the leak (i.e. loss of electricity at points, loss of use of 2 rooms during the leak), or any expenses incurred by the resident during this period such as the cost of running dehumidifiers. The response also mistakenly stated that the repairs were completed in August 2022 when the landlord’s repairs records state that all works were completed in December 2022. This is a failure of the landlord to investigate the issue being raised during the complaints procedure, properly apply its compensation policy, and ensure that the information it provided to the resident was accurate.
It is positive that the landlord reviewed the resident’s complaint after referral to this Service and increased the amount of compensation offered in June 2023. The letter offering compensation breaks down the compensation offered and makes it clear that £550 was offered for delays in arranging repairs and for distress and inconvenience, and £100 offered for delays in complaint handling. However, this updated offer did not recognise the landlord’s failings in handling the leak in August 2022 or the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. The compensation offer was inadequate to restore the resident to the position he would have been in ‘but for’ the leak and is inadequate to remedy the time, trouble, and frustration caused by the landlord’s failings or the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. This demonstrates that the landlord has failed to learn from the outcome of the resident’s complaint, even after a review of the final complaint response.
The landlord has failed to keep to its policies on timescales for complaint responses and for assessing compensation. The handling of the complaint is also not in accordance with the Housing Ombudsman Services’ Dispute Resolution Principles, which states that effective dispute resolution is driven by being fair, putting things right, and learning from outcomes. It is positive that the landlord has acknowledged the extent of the issue, given advice to the resident on how to make claims on the landlord’s insurance policies, and offered compensation for delays in repairs between January and July 2022. However, it should also have assessed the leak in August 2022 and applied its compensation policy to this period.
Due to the landlord’s delays in complaints handling, failure to fully consider the points in the resident’s complaint, and failure to properly apply its complaints policy to the facts of the case, this Service has found service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of requests for repairs to a leaking communal roof, including associated repairs to damage caused to the resident’s property.
2. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders and Recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must:
1. Provide this Service with an assurance that other properties affected by the leaking roof have been inspected as per the recommendation in the structural survey dated 24 October 2022. If there are any affected properties which have not been inspected, the landlord must arrange inspections as soon as possible and provide this Service with an action plan to tackle any issues identified.
2. Pay the resident £650 comprising of:
  1. £250 for its delays in responding appropriately to the request for repairs made on 16 August 2022. This is in addition to the £550 offered after completion of its complaints process.
  2. £300 in recognition of the loss of use of two rooms for a month in the resident’s property following the August 2022 leak.
  3. £50 in recognition of costs associated with running dehumidifiers provided by the landlord while these were in the resident’s property.
  4. £50 for its failure in handling the resident’s complaint. This is in addition to the £100 already offered after completion of its complaints process.
Within 8 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must:
1. Prepare a procedure or guidance on how its ‘out of hours’ services responds to requests for emergency and urgent roof repairs and how information is passed between out of hours and daytime teams. A copy of this procedure must be provided to this Service.
2. Review how it approaches assessing uncontainable leaks and draft a procedure on the steps required to address such a report. A copy of this procedure must be provided to this Service.

Recommendations

Review training of complaints handling staff and ensure that staff are aware of the landlord’s compensation policy and how to apply it to a complaint.