City of Westminster Council (202226345)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202226345

Westminster City Council

27 May 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the residents:

a. Reports of bed bugs

b. Reports of outstanding safety checks

c. Request for a level-access shower

We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling

Background

The resident is a fixed-term flexible tenant of the landlord, a local authority. He lives in a 1–bedroom second-floor flat in a block, and his tenancy started in December 2018. The resident has confirmed to us that he has a mental health condition. The landlord has no recorded vulnerabilities for the resident but is aware that he is a vulnerable resident.
The resident has reported bed bugs since 2020, and 7 visits were completed between 2020 and 2022. Of the 7 visits completed, the landlord said that 3 bed bugs were found.
Following a report of bed bugs on 4 April 2022, the resident declined a scheduled treatment due to concerns about the chemicals used and their potential impact on his health. The concerns were raised as a complaint on 8 March 2023, which also included outstanding ‘gas’ safety checks and an issue relating to his shower.
The landlord responded at stage 1 on 22 March 2023, explaining that the resident had refused access to treat the bed bugs in 2021 and 2022 and further declined treatment on 19 June 2023. The landlord confirmed it could not proceed without the resident’s cooperation. It also noted that there was no gas supply in the property and clarified that the resident had refused entry for smoke detector checks, fearing that operatives would be infested with bed bugs. The landlord reported no repairs were logged for the shower.
On 18 August 2023, the resident submitted a petition to the landlord about a wider bed bug problem in his block. He was also unhappy that he had received a letter regarding a 5-year electrical safety check and was concerned that the landlord was not thinking about the welfare of the operatives attending a property with bed bugs.
The landlord issued a further stage 1 response on 21 August 2023, apologising that the bed bug issue was ongoing, explaining that it could not discuss other residents’ circumstances and confirming that inspections for treatments would need to be arranged across the block. It proposed that operatives attend the resident’s property wearing PPE to alleviate the resident’s concerns and simultaneously complete an electrical safety check. A follow-up stage 1 response on 24 August 2023 confirmed that all chemicals used to treat bed bugs had passed health and safety checks. It was exploring options to move the resident temporarily so that it could complete the treatment.
On 2 September 2023, the resident raised a new complaint that the landlord had refused to install a level-entry shower. While the resident initially raised this as a repair issue (in his initial complaint on 8 March 2023), it became clear that he was requesting an adaptation due to his health needs. The landlord said that an earlier assessment (in 2019) had found that an installation was not feasible, but it was willing to reassess the situation and explore rehousing if necessary.
The resident confirmed to our Service that he asked to escalate his complaint on 16 May 2023. While we have not received a copy of the escalation, the landlord provided a stage 2 response at our request on 18 October 2023. It acknowledged issuing 3 stage 1 responses and said it should have escalated the complaint sooner. It confirmed it had contacted adult social services, offered floating support via its provider (suspended due to the resident’s behaviour), and attempted to gain access to resolve the reported bed bug issue and complete the safety checks. It offered compensation of £1875, broken down as:
1. £1550 for delays in finding an alternative solution to reports of bed bugs and the provision of a level access shower
2. £250 for failures in managing the complaints, which could have led to a quicker resolution
3. £75 for the time and trouble pursuing the complaint
The landlord also clarified that it could not complete electrical safety checks due to a lack of access. Since the last Electrical Installation Condition Report (EICR) was completed in December 2018, the 5-year interval would have required a check by the end of 2023. While the resident raised concerns about gas safety, the landlord confirmed the flat had no gas supply.
The resident asked us to investigate his complaint as he requested as a resolution to his complaint that the landlord treats the bed bugs in his property, relocate him and offer him compensation.

Assessment and findings

Reports of bed bugs

The resident has reported issues with bed bugs in his property over several years. The landlord’s records confirm that pest control interventions have been attempted in the past, including a planned treatment in April 2022, which the resident declined due to concerns about the chemicals used. While this history provides context, this investigation focuses on the landlord’s actions from March 2023 onwards, when the resident submitted a complaint about bed bugs.
On 8 March 2023, the resident reported a bed bug infestation in his flat. The landlord responded with a stage 1 complaint response on 22 March 2023, indicating that there had been no reports of bed bugs since April 2022. The landlord said it could only act if the resident reported issues and granted access. Without updated reports or confirmation of ongoing problems from the resident, the landlord could not effectively resolve the situation.
The landlord’s Pest Control Policy confirms that it provides pest treatment for infestations but makes it clear that:
1. treatment is conditional on resident cooperation, including access to the property
2. it uses professional contractors to treat bed bugs using approved chemicals that meet health and safety regulations
In its 22 March 2023 stage 1 response, the landlord confirmed that no treatment had occurred since 2022 due to a lack of access. In line with the policy, it explained that treatment required the resident’s cooperation and that it had remained committed to resolving the issue. However, the response did not at that stage include tailored offers to address the resident’s chemical safety concerns, such as PPE or a temporary move, which might have reasonably been explored at an earlier stage, given the known vulnerabilities of the resident and the length of time he had been reporting the issue.
When the resident again refused treatment on 19 June 2023, the landlord had not yet escalated or adapted its approach. Only after the resident submitted a petition on 18 August 2023, reporting that 10 other flats were affected, the landlord began to act more proactively. In its 21 August 2023 stage 1 response, the landlord:
1. apologised for the ongoing infestation
2. offered PPE for pest control operatives
3. proposed coordinating the treatment with electrical safety checks
4. stated it would follow up with other residents
The response demonstrated alignment with its policy, particularly in attempting to coordinate access and respond to a potential block-wide infestation. The landlord supplemented this response on 24 August 2023, confirming that all chemicals used met safety standards. Importantly, it was exploring a temporary move for the resident, which was a reasonable adjustment considering the circumstances.
Despite these steps, the resident declined another treatment appointment scheduled for 4 October 2023. In its stage 2 response of 18 October 2023, the landlord confirmed:
1. it would support a temporary move to enable treatment
2. it had attempted to involve its floating support service, which had been suspended due to the resident’s behaviour
3. it was working with adult social services to find a resolution
4. it had contacted other residents in the block in response to the petition
This final response demonstrated improved coordination and support consistent with the policy. However, by this point, 7 months had passed since the residents’ complaint in March 2023. The chance to tackle the potential infestation proactively earlier in the process was missed.
However, the landlord faced limitations due to the resident’s refusal to grant access. According to the Pest Control Policy, a case may be closed if a resident does not cooperate or permit access. Despite this, the landlord remained engaged, adjusted its approach, and considered alternative solutions, such as using PPE and a temporary relocation. This approach was consistent with our Pest Guidance, which emphasises that landlords should make extra efforts for flexibility when dealing with vulnerable residents, including options like temporary relocation or involving support services, which was done in this case.
The landlord apologised for the delay in addressing the resident’s issues and acknowledged the distress this caused. It recognised that alternative solutions could have been offered sooner to resolve the problem satisfactorily. As a result, the landlord offered compensation of £1550. In our view, the landlord provided options for the resident to ensure the reported issue could be resolved but could not force the resident to accept any proposed options. Therefore, we conclude that the landlord offered reasonable redress for the delays in providing alternative solutions that caused distress to the resident.
We have been unable to establish the position on the bed bugs. Therefore, we recommend the landlord contact the resident to confirm whether the bed bug issue remains a concern. If it does, the landlord should offer to inspect and treat the bed bugs if necessary. It should also offer to temporarily relocate the resident to facilitate the treatment process.

Reports of outstanding safety checks

While the resident raised concerns on 8 March 2022 about an outstanding gas safety check, the landlord clarified in its 22 March 2023 stage 1 response that the property was all electric and had no gas supply. Given the resident’s confusion, it was reasonable for the landlord to clarify this. However, it would have been helpful for the landlord to explain what safety checks were relevant to his property (for example, electrical safety and smoke alarms).
The records indicate that the latest attempt to perform a smoke detector check occurred on 5 February 2023, but the landlord reported that the resident denied access. The resident denied entry due to worries that bed bugs could affect the operatives, which impeded the landlord’s ability to proceed with checks.
Under the terms of the resident’s tenancy agreement, he must allow reasonable access to his property for the landlord to carry out repairs, servicing, and safety inspections. This includes electrical safety inspections and smoke alarm testing.
The landlord has specific duties relating to smoke alarms under various housing legislation and safety regulations. While routine testing of smoke alarms may not be mandated by law, landlords have a general obligation to ensure that their properties are safe and free from hazards, including installing functional smoke alarms.
Under the Housing Act 2004 and the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS), the landlord can assess whether a property poses any risks to its residents. If smoke alarms are non-operational or absent, the landlord must rectify these issues, which may involve repairing or replacing faulty alarms.
In this case, there is no evidence to confirm that the resident reported that the smoke alarms were not operational. The landlord attempted to access the property on 5 February 2023 to check the smoke alarm as part of an annual safety check. Since there was no prior communication from the resident regarding issues with the smoke alarms, it cannot be considered a failing on the landlord’s part.
Regarding electrical safety, the landlord confirmed that an Electrical Installation Condition Report (EICR) was completed in December 2018, while the property was empty before the resident’s occupation. This aligns with the landlord adhering to equivalent safety standards to ensure that electrical installations are inspected and tested every 5-years or before a new tenancy starts. Based on this, the inspection would have been due in December 2023.
In its August 2023 stage 1 response, the landlord acknowledged that the resident continued to deny access, so it could not complete the electrical and smoke alarm checks. In response, it offered to schedule a visit alongside pest control treatment and suggested that operatives wear PPE to mitigate the resident’s concerns.
The landlord’s stage 2 response on 18 October 2023 confirmed that it remained committed to carrying out the checks, sought the resident’s cooperation, and coordinated support with adult social services. It did not pursue enforcement action but instead maintained a supportive approach.
We have found no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the smoke alarm and electrical safety checks. The landlord acted in line with its health and safety responsibilities by attempting to arrange access within the 5-year inspection window, offering reasonable adjustments in light of the resident’s concerns and engaging support services. It also confirmed it did not have any reports that the smoke alarms were not operational and had attempted to access the property to check the alarms for the resident.

Request for a level access shower

On 8 March 2023, the resident raised concerns that initially appeared to relate to a repair to his existing shower. In its 22 March 2023 stage 1 response, the landlord confirmed that there were no outstanding repairs logged for the shower. However, it later became clear that the resident was not reporting a repair but rather requesting the installation of a level access shower.
The resident lives in a first-floor flat. On 2 September 2023, he complained that the landlord refused to install a level access shower. The landlord responded in its stage 2 response on 18 October 2023, confirming that a previous assessment had concluded it was not feasible to install a level access shower (from the records, this was around 2019). However, it committed to arranging a further assessment to re-explore the possibility. It confirmed if it was not deemed suitable, it would work with the resident to explore alternative housing options appropriate to his needs.
The landlord’s Home Improvement Grants and Assistance policy states that:
1. adaptations must be reasonable and practicable taking into account the suitability of the property
2. if the property is unsuitable for the requested adaptation the landlord should consider rehousing as an alternative
The landlord’s response was consistent with those expectations. It acknowledged the request, confirmed a previous assessment had already taken place, and committed to reviewing the position. It also considered that it would work with the resident to consider rehousing, which was reasonable.
The landlord apologised for the delays in confirming whether it would install a level access shower. The landlord acted in line with its policy, acknowledged the delays, and offered compensation that was proportionate to the circumstances. Although the exact breakdown of the £1550 compensation is not known, the total amount provided exceeded what we would typically order in cases like this for distress caused by delays. Therefore, we have found the landlord offered reasonable redress.

Complaint handling

The resident raised a complaint on 8 March 2023. The landlord issued a stage 1 complaint response on 22 March 2023, with a further stage 1 correspondence sent on 21 August 2023 and 24 August 2023. A final stage 2 response was sent on 18 October 2023, 7 months after the initial complaint was raised.
In this case, the landlord failed to escalate the complaint. Instead, it issued 3 separate stage 1 responses across a 5-month period. This approach does not follow its complaints policy or our Complaint Handling Code (the Code), which states that landlords must not issue repeated stage 1 responses in place of a timely escalation. This led to avoidable delay and confusion for the resident, which the landlord acknowledged in its stage 2 response.
That said, we acknowledge that the presentation of the resident’s complaint, expressed in a fragmented way over time, made the complaint handling more challenging for the landlord to understand, isolate and address the points. While it does not excuse the failure to escalate appropriately, which led to the involvement of our Service, it provides context for the complexity of handling this complaint.
The landlord offered £250 compensation for its failure to manage the complaint appropriately and £75 for the time and trouble, totalling £325 for complaint handling failures. In line with our remedies guidance, this was proportionate for a case involving complaint handling delays and the inconvenience caused.
While it demonstrated a commitment to putting things right, it did not identify service improvements or learning outcomes from the complaint. This was a missed opportunity to embed learning to prevent similar complaint handling failures from recurring. Therefore, we have found service failure.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress offered for the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of bed bugs.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of outstanding safety checks.
In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress offered in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a level access shower.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Order

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must provide evidence that it has:
1. reviewed its handling of the complaint and outlined the steps it has taken to ensure an appropriate response in line with its complaints policy, particularly considering the resident’s vulnerabilities that may affect the way he communicates.

Recommendations

We recommend that the landlord:
1. Pay the resident £1850 as offered at stage 2, broken down as:
  1. £1550 for the distress that was caused because of the landlord’s handling of the bed bugs and the request for a level access shower
  2. £250 for the distress and inconvenience caused because of the landlord’s handling of the complaint
  3. £75 for the time and trouble spent by the resident pursuing the complaint
2. The findings of reasonable redress have been made on the basis that the compensation has been or will be paid
3. The money should be paid directly to the resident
Contacts the resident and establish if bedbug treatment is required within 4 weeks from the date of this report. The landlord should re-offer to temporarily move the resident to facilitate any treatment, if required.
The landlord should update us on the recommendations within 4 weeks.