Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

City of Westminster Council (202400657)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202400657

Westminster City Council

28 October 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s:
    1. response to the resident’s reports about a broken window and extractor fan;
    2. complaints handling.

Background

  1. The resident has been a secure tenant at the property of the landlord since July 2018. The landlord is a local authority. Throughout the period of the complaint, both the resident and her son have communicated with the landlord. For the purposes of this report, all communications from both the resident or her son are referred to as coming from ‘the resident’, unless it is otherwise necessary to distinguish between them.
  2. Prior to the period of the complaint, the resident had experienced condensation and mould in her bathroom. This was addressed, and the landlord subsequently installed a new window with an extractor fan to assist with condensation.
  3. On 29 September 2023, the resident reported that the new window had cracked. The landlord attended and boarded up the window to make it safe. The resident then called the landlord several times for updates but did not receive a response. The resident expressed concern that the broken window was causing a cold draught, making it uncomfortable to use the bathroom during the winter months.
  4. The resident raised a formal complaint on 18 December 2023. The landlord acknowledged this the next day and provided a stage 1 response on 8 January 2024, which included the following:
    1. It explained that “due to an administrative error,” the works had erroneously been marked as complete on its repair system.
    2. It had raised new works on 6 December 2023 and noted that the window was repaired on 22 December 2023. It also noted that the extractor fan was found to be faulty and confirmed repair works had been raised for 10 January 2024.
    3. It apologised for the delays and for its failure to respond to the requests for updates. It offered £100 compensation for the resident’s distress and inconvenience.
  5. It is not disputed that the appointment on 10 January 2024 was cancelled without notice and a subsequent appointment on 12 January 2024 was abandoned as the operative did not have a ladder.
  6. The resident expressed concern that the mould may return given the draughts. She escalated the complaint on 17 January 2024, which the landlord acknowledged on 23 January 2024. It advised that it would provide a stage 2 response by 14 February 2024.
  7. On 21 February 2024, the landlord apologised for the delay to its stage 2 response and advised it would now be sent by 6 March 2024. The resident chased the response on 11 March 2024 and again on 24 March 2024 without a response.
  8. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 28 March 2024, which included the following:
    1. It acknowledged there had been 4 failed appointments for which it apologised. It advised that it was raising these failings with its contractor to improve its service.
    2. It noted that during the most recent appointment on 19 March 2024, the operative had broken the new window again. The contractor was now awaiting new glass and would then book in an appointment for a repair.
    3. It offered a further £150 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused, being £100 for the repair delays and £50 for the delays to its complaint response.
  9. The resident referred the complaint to this Service in April 2024, at which point the repairs had still not been completed. It is evident from the landlord’s internal records that there was a lack of understanding of what works had been completed, and further works were not arranged until October 2024.
  10. The resident has advised this Service that the window has now been replaced but that the fan remains broken. The resident further advised that operatives attended on 15 October 2024, but the works were not completed, and no further updates have been provided.

Assessment and findings

Policies and procedures

  1. The landlord’s repairs policy notes that urgent repairs to make things safe will take place within 24 hours. Routine repairs will take up to 28 days. The policy also notes that it will communicate any delays with appointments.
  2. The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints policy. It notes it will acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days and provide a stage 1 response within a further 10 working days. It will also acknowledge an escalation request within 5 working days and provide a stage 2 response within a further 20 working days.
  3. The landlord operates a compensation policy. The policy notes that the landlord may offer £20 for instances of missed appointments. It also notes that it may offer £50 for a “small degree of distress, time, and trouble,” moving up to £100 for “a moderate delay in carrying out a routine repair.”

Window

  1. Following the resident’s initial reports that the window had cracked, the landlord attended the next day to make the window safe. This was reasonable and in line with its policy.
  2. Where there is a repair issue, the landlord should provide the resident with its position on responsibility for the repair. The resident’s son has advised this service that he later discovered that the landlord was initially of the position that glass was the resident’s responsibility. However, it did not articulate this in any formal communication at the time, nor did it provide any updates setting out any sort of position. This led the resident to have to expend time and trouble chasing updates. This was particularly concerning given that the resident is a senior citizen and had raised concerns that the bathroom was difficult to use because of the draughts.
  3. As part of its stage 1 response, the landlord explained its delay had been due to a mistake in its repair records. While this is an explanation, it is not an excuse. A landlord’s repair records should be sufficiently robust to ensure that repairs are recorded and actioned correctly. Additionally, while a mistake had occurred, the landlord should reasonably have uncovered this mistake had it replied to the resident’s requests for updates. Its poor communication was therefore a contributing factor to the distress caused to the resident and the delay she experienced. It was appropriate, therefore, that the landlord apologised for the impact this caused.
  4. The landlord offered £100 in its stage 1 response for the impact caused to the resident. This offer was in line with its compensation policy for a “moderate delay.” The Ombudsman also notes that this offer was made at the earliest opportunity and was made in conjunction with an apology. Had the landlord’s service improved from this moment onwards, a finding of reasonable redress may have been made.
  5. However, it is not disputed that there were 4 missed or failed appointments following the landlord’s stage 1 promise to resolve the issues. These included instances where the landlord’s contractors attended without the correct equipment. This demonstrates a failing in the landlord’s repair systems, which should ensure that relevant notes are available to contractors to ensure there are no unreasonable failed appointments. It was appropriate, therefore, that the landlord recognised in its stage 2 response that there were improvements with its contractor notes to be made going forward. This acknowledgement was in line with this Service’s dispute resolution principle of seeking to learn from outcomes.
  6. The Ombudsman notes that during one visit to repair the extractor fan in the bathroom, the window was accidentally broken. While this was certainly an inconvenience for the resident, it was not intentional, and the landlord appropriately raised works to fix it again.
  7. The landlord informed the resident about the new window works in its stage two response; however, despite works to the fan being promised in its stage one response, it failed to note that these works remained incomplete or provide an updated position on this issue. While it offered some compensation for the ongoing delays, it failed to use its formal response as an opportunity to set out a timeframe for all of the outstanding works. This left the resident unclear about when the issue would be resolved.
  8. Based on the landlord’s internal communications, it appears there was ongoing confusion about what works were completed, what was left to be done, and when it would be done. This further demonstrated issues with the efficacy of its repair records, which is something it had already promised to address in its stage one response. It subsequently took a further seven months for the window works to be completed, without a reasonable explanation. Given the resident’s concerns about the draughts in the bathroom, along with her concerns about a potential for damp to return, this was an unacceptable timeframe, which demonstrated a lack of urgency from the landlord.
  9. Given the above identified failings, a finding of maladministration has been made. While it was appropriate that the landlord made a further offer of £100 compensation in its stage two response for the ongoing delays, this amount does not reflect the level of distress and inconvenience caused to the resident over the period of the complaint.
  10. Given that the works were reported on 29 September 2023, the resident had a reasonable expectation of a resolution within 28 days. However, a full year passed before the window issue was addressed. The resident has also reported that the fan has still not been addressed. An order for £600 has been made to reflect the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident over this period, being £50 per month. An order has also been made to offer the resident a date for the extractor fan works, if these are yet to have been completed.

Complaints handling

  1. Following the resident’s initial complaint on 18 December 2023, the landlord acknowledged the complaint and provided a stage 1 response within the timeframes of its policy. Similarly, it acknowledged the stage 2 escalation request within a reasonable timeframe.
  2. This Service’s Complaints Handling Code (the Code) notes that where a complaint response is to be delayed, the landlord should notify the resident that there will be a delay and agree an extended timeframe if the response is to be significantly delayed. In this case, the landlord initially advised that it would provide its stage 2 response by 14 February 2024. However, it did not provide its response in this timeframe, nor did it notify the resident of a delay. This led the resident to have to expend time and effort chasing an update.
  3. The landlord then raised the resident’s expectations of a response by 6 March 2024. However, once again, it missed this timeframe, which would have caused further distress to the resident and led her to chase updates on 2 further occasions.
  4. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 28 March 2024, approximately 1 month after its initially promised timeframe. The landlord acknowledged this delay in its stage 2 response, for which it apologised. It also offered £50 compensation.
  5. In summary, there were repeated delays to the landlord’s stage 2 response, which the resident had to chase, which would have been frustrating. However, the landlord acknowledged this failing and apologised. There was no lasting detriment, and the landlord offered compensation that was in line with its policy. Its offer was also in line with this Service’s remedies guidance for instances of service failure where there is no lasting impact. In the circumstances, therefore, a finding of reasonable redress has been made.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of the complaints regarding its response to the resident’s reports about a broken window and extractor fan.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Scheme, and in the Ombudsman’s opinion, there was reasonable redress offered by the landlord for its service failure in respect of the complaints regarding its complaints handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay compensation of £600 for any distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its delays to the window and extractor fan repairs.
  2. This replaces the landlord’s previous offer of £200. This amount (less any amount already paid by the landlord as part of its previous offer) must be paid within 4 weeks of the date of this determination.
  3. Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord is to contact the resident and offer an appointment for the extractor fan works, should these remain outstanding.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord is to reiterate its offer of £50 compensation for its delayed stage 2 complaint response, if this is yet to have been accepted.

Chat to us