Read our new Spotlight report on repairs and maintenance – repairing trust.

Westminster City Council (202319436)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202319436

Westminster City Council

13 February 2025

 

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:
    1. Reports of a repair required to the ventilation system.
    2. Reports of damp and mould.
    3. Request to replace her front door.
    4. Reports of drainage issues in her bathroom.

Background

  1. The resident is a leaseholder with the landlord (a Local Authority) and lives on the first floor in a 2-bedroom flat.
  2. Between January and April 2023, the resident reported issues with ventilation in her property and that she was having drainage issues in her bathroom. The resident also requested that a new front door be fitted at her property as the current one had become insecure.
  3. On 13 June 2023, the resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord. This was responded to on 21 June 2023. The resident escalated her complaint on 22 June 2023. She said that the ventilation had not been fixed and this was causing mould build up, that the landlord had failed to deal with her request for a front door and that the drainage issues had only temporarily been fixed. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 4 August 2023, it said:
    1. Ventilation works were attended to on 16 June 2023 and 3 new fan units were installed on the roof of the flats. This should have fixed the extraction issue at the resident’s home. However, as the resident reported that the issue was ongoing a new appointment to assess the repairs was made on 17 August 2023.
    2. Most recent report of a blockage in the resident’s toilet was reported on 3 July 2023. This was attended to by a plumber who carried out a full repair and cleared any blockage. As the resident was a leaseholder, she was responsible for issues before the soil stack. Therefore, the resident should arrange her own plumber in future to check her own pipes and if it is a soil stack issue, this should then be reported to the landlord.
    3. That it had recently carried out a programme to replace front doors, but this was not for leaseholders. It did have a new project, and the resident would be contacted to see if she would like to pay for a new door as part of this new programme.
    4. Once the appointment in August about ventilation was completed, it would reconsider compensation for any delays.
  4. On 17 July 2024 the landlord issued a review of its stage 2 complaint response and new offer of compensation. It said:
    1. That its service had been below the standard expected and it was sorry for the delays in resolving the ventilation issue.
    2. Ventilation issues had been completed on 16 July 2024 and the system had been confirmed as fully operational.
    3. It would offer a mould wash as a goodwill gesture due to the delay in completing the ventilation work. In addition, a payment of £1,100 in compensation was offered broken down as:
      1. £600 for the extended delays in completing the repairs.
      2. £250 for the delay in reviewing the offer of compensation as per the stage 2 complaint response.
      3. £250 for the poor communication and distress and inconvenience caused.
  5. The resident accepted the offer of compensation but rejected the offer of a mould wash as she had already cleared the issue herself. She referred her complaint to this Service on 27 September 2023 and requested that the issues outstanding were fixed, and an offer of compensation was made.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

  1. It is noted that the resident has raised several new complaints since the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 4 August 2023. These complaints concern issues such as missed pest control appointments, a garage application, a temporary ramp and the electrics in the resident’s property. In the interest of fairness, the scope of this investigation is focussed on the issues raised during the resident’s formal complaint, which was responded to at stage 2 by the landlord on 4 August 2023 which was referred to this service on 27 September 2023. Any new issues that have been raised as a formal complaint and that have exhausted the landlord’s complaint procedure can be referred to this Service if the resident remains unhappy. Any new issues will be dealt with as a separate investigation.
  2. While the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 4 August 2023 the Ombudsman will assess whether the resolutions it offered as part of its response were adhered to. Therefore, the scope of this investigation will consider the landlord’s actions in relation to the resolutions it offered following the stage 2 complaint response.

Ventilation

  1. At the time of the resident’s complaint the landlord did not have any set repair timescales for repairs for leasehold properties. Its leaseholder handbook set out who was responsible for different repairs. This handbook advised that the landlord was responsible for repairs relating to communal elements which included the ventilation system.
  2. While no repair timescales were set out in the leaseholder handbook, the landlord’s repair policy for other tenants set out that repairs that were urgent such as an extractor fan in a bathroom not working would be attended to within 7 days to undertake a repair. It also says that routine repairs would be completed within 28 days. Therefore, it is fair to use these timescales as a benchmark to assess the landlord’s actions when dealing with the resident’s reported repair.
  3. The resident reported issues with ventilation in her bathroom on 20 February 2023. The landlord’s initial actions in response to this report were reasonable and timely. It arranged for a contractor to attend the resident’s property within 7 days to assess the repair. The assessment found that the extractor fan was not getting airflow. The contractor reported that a follow-on job would be required to verify what number unit on the roof serves which flat and to identify the specific faults.
  4. The landlord sourced a specialist contractor to review the communal units. On 28 March 2023 a contractor attended and attempted to carry out repairs. However, it was discovered that a fuse had blown, and parts were required to renew elements of the communal units. While it took around 5 weeks for the specialist contractor to attend the resident’s property, the actions of the landlord during this period were reasonable. It took prompt steps to find a contractor who could complete the necessary follow on works and was using the information available to try and find a permanent resolution to the reported issue.
  5. However, the actions of the landlord following 28 March 2023 fell below a reasonable standard. It did not keep the resident updated on the steps it was taking to try and resolve the ventilation issue. There is also an absence of evidence to show that it was communicating effectively with its contractor to chase up the required follow-on work. It was not until the resident raised a formal complaint on 13 June 2023 about the time it was taking to complete the repair, that a new appointment was arranged to install 3 new fans to the communal system.
  6. The Ombudsman’s spotlight report from September 2020 on leasehold, shared ownership and new builds provides recommendations which includes that landlords should keep residents up to date on works required and expected timescales, and that regular updates explaining any delays and an expected date of completion should be provided. By failing to effectively communicate with the resident about the time taken to arrange the initial ventilation repairs, it caused the resident some unnecessary distress and inconvenience.
  7. Despite the installation of 3 new fans on 16 June 2023 to the communal system, the resident reported on 22 June 2023 as part of her complaint escalation that the ventilation system still did not work. It took the landlord around 8 weeks to arrange a further inspection of the system which took place on 22 August 2023.
  8. The time taken to conduct a further assessment of the issue was unreasonable. The resident had explained as part of her formal complaint that the lack of ventilation had the potential to cause health issues to a young child living at the property as there was some mould growth in her bathroom. While the resident did not expand on the health issues of the child, the landlord should have recognised the potential vulnerability within the household and considered adjusting the urgency of its approach.
  9. Following the assessment on 22 August 2023, the contractor advised that the unit servicing the resident’s flat was not running and a replacement was required. However, no further action was taken by the landlord following the contractor’s inspection. Instead, the resident had to chase the landlord in October 2023 for an update. The landlord arranged a new inspection which was not carried out until 7 December 2023, where the contractor again reported that the unit servicing the resident’s flat required replacement.
  10. This meant that following the inspection on 22 August 2023, the resident had to wait roughly a further 15 weeks for the landlord to take any action. When the landlord did take action, the same work (a replacement unit) was reported by the contractor. The failure to take action by the landlord following the inspection in August 2023 caused the resident some further distress and frustration.
  11. The impact on the resident was increased further as following the inspection on 7 December 2023, the landlord repeated the earlier failure and did not take any action until June 2024. It only chased the contractor up about the follow on works after it had received communication from this Service. This period of 6 months with no further action significantly increased the resident’s distress and inconvenience. The ventilation works were completed on 17 July 2024.
  12. To summarise, the landlord’s communication with the resident after March 2023 until the issue was resolved in July 2024 was poor. It did not keep the resident updated regularly on the action it was taking, and it did not provide any clarity on when the resident could expect the issue to be resolved. In addition to this, after the inspection on 22 August 2023 the landlord failed to act on the recommendations of the contractor for around 10 months. These failures caused the resident unnecessary distress, inconvenience, and frustration.
  13. As part of its stage 2 complaint response the landlord advised that it would review its offer of compensation in relation to the ventilation issue following the inspection in August 2023. On 17 July 2024, following completion of the ventilation works the landlord issued a review of its stage 2 complaint response to the resident. It advised that:
    1. It apologised as the service provided fell “well below” the standards it expected, and it had not offered compensation as it said it would following the stage 2 complaint response.
    2. The delay in arranging repairs and offering compensation was due to a lack of communication which was unacceptable and that it would make sure that better communication was provided as part of its “lessons learnt process”.
    3. To recognise the failings, it would offer compensation broken down as:
      1. £600 for the extended delays in completing the repairs.
      2. £250 for the delay in reviewing the offer of compensation as per the stage 2 complaint response.
      3. £250 for the poor communication and distress and inconvenience caused.
  14. The landlord’s own compensation policy says that where there has been a “high impact” on the resident it would award compensation of between £600 to £1,000. Where there has been a “medium impact” that caused distress and inconvenience but there has been no permanent impact on the resident a payment of between £100 to £600 would be awarded. This is broadly in line with this Service’s guidance on remedies.
  15. The landlord offered a payment for the delays in completing the repairs within the “high impact” range, and for its other failings within the “medium impact” range. It also apologised to the resident and set out how it would learn from the failings identified. This offer of compensation is proportionate to the failings identified and in line with what this Service would recommend following a finding of maladministration. Therefore, the Ombudsman has considered whether a finding of reasonable redress is fair in the circumstances.
  16. It is important to note that the review on 17 July 2024 was only conducted following contact by this Service and happened almost 1 year after its stage 2 complaint response. The landlord’s offer to review its compensation offer following the August 2023 inspection did not happen. While it is positive that the landlord took steps to resolve the case following contact from this Service, it should not have taken this Service’s prompt, 1 year after its stage 2 complaint response, to come up with a proportionate offer. Therefore, taking all the circumstances into account, the Ombudsman considers that the landlord’s actions do amount to maladministration, but that no increase in compensation is necessary.

Damp and Mould

  1. At the time of the repairs the landlord did not have any specific policy for leaseholders that dealt with or mentioned damp and mould. However, the resident’s lease and the leaseholder’s handbook says that the resident would be responsible for repairs and maintenance of the inside of her flat. The exception to this, is if the repairs required are structural issues with the building itself.
  2. The resident initially reported a potential issue with mould appearing in her bathroom on 23 April 2023. She advised that this may have related to the lack of ventilation. The landlord sent this information to its damp and mould team on 24 April 2023 and an appointment for a survey was arranged for 28 April 2023. However, this appointment was cancelled.
  3. The resident chased the landlord for an update on what they would do regarding the mould on 24 May 2023, 6 June 2023, and as part of her formal complaint on 13 June 2023. The landlord replied on 21 June 2023 as part of its stage 1 complaint response, it said:
    1. The decision to send the information to its damp and mould team on 24 April 2023 was incorrect.
    2. That as the resident was the leaseholder she would be responsible for any damp and mould in her bathroom.
    3. If the resident believed the landlord was at fault for the appearance of mould, she could claim on its building’s insurance. It provided a link for the resident to do this.
  4. Based on the resident’s lease and the information contained within the leaseholder handbook, it is accurate to say that the resident was responsible for issues that happen within the interior of the property. The landlord also provided its insurance information for the resident and explained how she could make a claim should she consider the issue of mould was due to the landlord’s actions or inaction. The information provided by the landlord in its stage 1 complaint response was appropriate and in line with the lease and its obligations.
  5. However, it took the landlord around 2 months to realise it had provided incorrect information to the resident. This led the resident to believe she would receive assistance from the landlord to deal with the mould in her bathroom. The failure to provide the correct information initially, and the time taken to communicate this error was unreasonable. This caused the resident some inconvenience and frustration.
  6. While the landlord’s stage 1 response was accurate and provided relevant information to the resident regarding the responsibility for damp and mould, it did not make an offer of compensation for this failing until its stage 2 review on 17 July 2024. In its review the landlord acknowledged the delays in fixing the ventilation may have helped cause a build-up of mould and offered a mould wash to the resident as a goodwill gesture. It also offered £250 as part of the overall offer of compensation (£1,100) for its poor communication and distress caused.
  7. Similar to the complaint about ventilation issues, the landlord missed an opportunity to provide a fair and proportionate remedy in its stage 1 and 2 complaint responses for the damp and mould issue. It took for this Service to contact the landlord before a review of its complaint response took place and a proportionate offer was made. Therefore, taking all the circumstances into account, the Ombudsman considers that the landlord’s actions amount to service failure, but that no increase in compensation is necessary.

Front door

  1. The resident’s lease says that she would be responsible for entrance doors to her flat and the leasehold handbook states that the resident would be responsible for front doors.
  2. On 23 April 2023 the resident asked the landlord when her front door would be replaced as several properties in her block had received an upgraded front door. The landlord responded on 24 April to say that the request had been passed to the relevant team and a response would be provided within 5 working days.
  3. The landlord failed to provide a response to the resident’s request until 4 August 2023 after the resident had chased for an update via her formal complaint. In its stage 2 complaint response the landlord confirmed that:
    1. The previous works to replace doors were for all tenanted properties only.
    2. As the resident was a leaseholder she would need to arrange replacement of her own front door in line with her lease responsibilities.
    3. There was a new project being designed and fire doors were included as part of the project. All residents would receive notification of this project closer to the time and leaseholders would be given the option to ‘opt in’ to have a replacement front door. This would be at the resident’s own cost.
  4. The landlord’s response to the resident’s request of 23 April 2023 was poor as there was an unreasonable delay in providing the correct information to the resident. It advised a reply would be provided within 5 working days, instead it took 71 working days to respond. This caused the resident some inconvenience and some time and trouble chasing for a reply.
  5. Despite the landlord providing accurate information in its stage 2 complaint response about the front door, it decided not to offer any compensation to the resident for the time taken to respond. The landlord’s own compensation policy says that a payment of between £100 to £600 should be considered where its actions have caused a medium but not permanent impact on a resident. Therefore, it would have been fair for the landlord to have offered compensation within this range.
  6. After this Service contacted the landlord its review of its stage 2 complaint response dated 17 July 2024, acknowledged that there had been poor communication which had caused some distress and inconvenience. As a resolution to this it advised that it would learn from the mistakes it had made and provide a better system of communication for leaseholders. It also offered £250 as part of the overall offer of compensation (£1,100) for its poor communication and distress this caused.
  7. Similar to the complaint about damp and mould, the landlord missed an opportunity to provide a fair and proportionate remedy as part of its complaint process, and only did so after contact from this Service. Therefore, taking all the circumstances into account, the Ombudsman considers that the landlord’s actions amount to service failure, but that no increase in compensation is necessary.

Drainage

  1. On 7 January 2023 the resident first reported that there was an issue with drainage at her property and that waste was ‘back surging’. The landlord attended the property on 8 January 2023 and cleared the drains. While there were no repair timescales at the time for leaseholders, the landlord completed this repair in line with its normal repair timescales. It’s repair policy at the time said that it would undertake urgent repairs such as a blocked drain within 7 days. Therefore, the landlord’s actions in response to the resident’s initial report was reasonable.
  2. The resident made 2 similar reports on 13 and 19 June 2023. The landlord again acted quickly to attend the resident’s property the same day as the drainage issues were reported. This response was reasonable and treated the reports with the urgency required which aligned with its repair policy at the time.
  3. As part of the resident’s formal complaint, she asked the landlord on 22 June 2023, to investigate if there was a more permanent fix to the drainage issue from happening again. In response the landlord assigned a contractor to investigate the blockages, and a contractor attended on 13 July 2023. This shows that the landlord responded promptly to the resident’s request and arranged for a contractor to attend within 21 days. This aligned with its repair policy timescales at the time which stated that routine repairs would be completed within 28 days.
  4. The contractor advised the landlord that the likely cause of the repeated drainage issues was that flats within the block were flushing away nappies and wet wipes. It advised that the pipes the landlord was responsible floor were clear. Following the contractor’s report, the landlord issued a letter on 14 July 2023 to all residents in the block. The letter warned that disposing nappies and wipes inside the toilet area was causing blockages. This shows that the landlord was proactive when responding to the contractor’s report.
  5. In its stage 2 complaint response the landlord advised that as a leaseholder the resident was responsible for any drainage issues before the soil stack. It advised that in future the resident should arrange her own plumber to attend and check the internal pipes. It said that if the resident’s plumber confirmed that the blockage was in the soil stack that she should call to report a repair.  This response aligns with the resident’s lease agreement which says that the resident is responsible for pipes within her property, other than the soil stack.
  6. Overall, the landlord responded to each report of drainage issues and carried out the relevant repair promptly. It investigated the cause of the issue and responded by issuing a letter to the block to try and prevent any further drainage problems. It then advised the resident clearly the actions she should take should the issue reoccur and when the landlord should be called to repair. Taking all the circumstances into account, the Ombudsman consider there was no maladministration.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration regarding the resident’s report of repairs required to the ventilation system.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure regarding:
    1. Reports of damp and mould.
    2. Request to replace her front door.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the residents reports of drainage issues in her bathroom.

Orders

  1. If the landlord has not done so already, it is ordered to pay the resident the £1,100 compensation offered in its stage 2 complaint response within 4 weeks of the date of this report.