City of Westminster Council (202435052)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202435052

Westminster City Council

01 July 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 repairs to the balcony door and bathroom window.
2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

3. The resident occupies the property, a 3 bedroom, ground floor flat, under a secure tenancy which was assigned to the resident on 21 September 2020.The resident is disabled and uses a wheelchair, and lives at the property with his wife and young child.
4. On 31 January 2023, the landlord raised a job to replace the balcony door at the property. On 31 March 2023, a job was raised to renew the window in the bathroom.
5. On 8 June 2023, the resident raised a complaint noting that the balcony door job was overdue and that this was a security risk. The resident said that they had been told that a quotation had been obtained and asked that the job was now completed quickly.
6. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 21 June 2023. The landlord upheld the resident’s complaint, and said that once the quote was received from its contractor, the contractor would be instructed to prioritise the works in light of the length of time the resident had been waiting. The landlord offered the resident £20 compensation for the delay and £20 for the distress and inconvenience caused.
7. On 4 April 2024, the resident asked the landlord to escalate the complaint. The resident said that the repair was still outstanding and noted that this was a security risk. The resident stated that the issue had been ongoing over several years and that the resident’s wife called the council weekly to check on the progress. The resident stated that in the region of 25 visits to the property had been made by the council, and that each time, the workers said that the balcony door needed to be replaced. The resident said that the £40 offered at stage 1 was not accepted, as their child had been ill due to the draughts, and they had incurred over £700 in additional heating costs due to the issue, which had still not been addressed.
8. On 12 June 2024, the landlord issued a stage 2 complaint response. It upheld the resident’s complaint and apologised for the delay in completing the repairs to the balcony door and bathroom window. It said it would arrange for the balcony door to be replaced and that this would take 2-3 months as it would need to be manufactured. It said that the bathroom window would be repaired, and this would be arranged by the landlord. The landlord acknowledged failures in recognising the resident’s vulnerability, poor communication and delays in its complaint handling and offered £1,040 in compensation, broken down as follows:
   1. £40 offered at Stage 1.
   2. £500 for the impact, distress, and inconvenience caused.
   3. £250 for the delays in arranging the repairs.
   4. £100 for the time and trouble pursuing this matter as well as the poor communication.
   5. £100 for failing to identify the vulnerabilities.
   6. £50 for the delay in providing the Stage 2 response.
9. The resident confirmed on 10 December 2024 that he wanted the Ombudsman to investigate the case because the repairs remained outstanding. He said he wanted the repairs to be carried out, and to receive an apology and be adequately compensated for this additional delay.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

10. The resident said in the course of his complaint that he believes that draughts and cold temperatures caused by the outstanding repairs have affected the health of his family, in particular his young son.
11. While the Ombudsman is sorry to hear of these problems, it is outside the Ombudsman’s remit to establish whether there is a direct link between the actions or inaction of the landlord and the effect on the resident’s family’s health. Such matters are better suited to a court or liability insurer to determine.
12. We have, however, considered the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident, as well as the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about his family’s health.

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the balcony door and bathroom window.

13. The landlord’s repairs policy categorises repairs according to their urgency. Under the policy, immediate repairs should be attended within 2 hours and made safe within 24 hours. The policy states that an unsecured ground floor window or door is an immediate repair.
14. The repairs policy also specifies that urgent repairs should be attended within seven working days, and non–urgent repairs, including issues that require substantial repair, should be completed within 28 working days.
15. There is evidence within the records that the resident first reported problems with closing the balcony door in January 2022 and again in March 2022, with the landlord attending on both occasions to complete works to adjust and close the balcony door.
16. On 9 September 2022, the repair records show that the resident reported that the door was not closing. Records show that on 23 September 2022 the landlord attended, put a draught excluder on the door, and adjusted the lock.
17. It was reasonable for the landlord to attempt to repair the door in September 2022. It is acknowledged that social landlords have limited resources and are expected to manage these resources responsibly, to the benefit of all their residents. In view of this, landlords are entitled to opt to repair damaged items such as doors or windows, if possible, rather than replacing them. The landlord was entitled to rely on its employee’s assessment that the door could be repaired before looking to replace it.
18. On 12 January 2023, the resident reported again that they were unable to close the balcony door. The landlord’s records show that its employee attended the same day and fitted a sash lock as a temporary measure, but noted that an engineer needed to fix the door frame so that the door could lock. It was appropriate that the landlord attended and made safe the ground floor door within 24 hours of the issue being reported. A job was raised by the landlord on 31 January 2024 to replace the kitchen balcony door and add new locks, repair the frame so that it would lock and adjust the kitchen window frame so that the window would shut.
19. The landlord attended on 2 February 2023, to inspect again. The landlord concluded that the balcony door, frame, and window needed to be replaced, and a request was made to instruct the landlord’s subcontractors to do so. It was appropriate that the landlord had initially made the door safe with a temporary lock, while assessing whether the door could be repaired or replaced. It is also acknowledged that it can take several visits for a landlord to determine the appropriate solution to the problem.
20. On 14 March 2023, the resident also reported a problem with the frame of the bathroom window. The landlord appropriately attended the same day. Records show that the operative made the window safe, and raised a follow on job to carry out repairs to the bathroom window and frame.
21. However, following assessment of both issues, the landlord did not complete the repairs. In spite of regular phone calls from the resident throughout March, April, May and June 2023, the repairs remained outstanding. It was inappropriate that the landlord did not arrange the repairs during this period, or keep the resident updated.
22. In its stage 1 response on 21 June 2023, the landlord acknowledged that there had been a delay in the landlord carrying out the balcony door replacement and repairs to the bathroom window. It said that there was some delay due to the landlord’s contractor providing a combined quote for the balcony door and window and the repairs to the bathroom window. It told the resident that it was waiting for the contractor to supply separate quotes for each job. It said that after these were received, the work would be carried out as a priority due to the length of time the resident had been waiting. This was an appropriate response to the resident’s complaint, acknowledging the delay, explaining the reason for the delay, and confirming that the repair would be carried out. It also appropriately offered compensation in order to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by the delay, and time and effort by the resident to resolve the issue.
23. On 23 June 2023, the landlord raised a job to install a sliding bolt on the top or bottom of the balcony door as a further temporary security measure. Records show that after two attempts to call the resident to arrange the interim repair, this work was carried out on 3 August 2023. Installing a slide bolt was an appropriate interim measure to mitigate the security risk while the resident waited for the repair to be completed.
24. However, records show that no further repairs were carried out by the landlord until 31 October 2023, when the landlord’s records show that a further operative attended and made safe the window and measured for a new balcony door and window panel set. This further delay was inappropriate, and contrary to the landlord’s obligations under its repairs policy.
25. At the beginning of 2024, the resident instructed solicitors to investigate a disrepair claim against the landlord. The solicitors sent a letter of claim to the landlord on 16 January 2024, outlining the problems with the balcony door and window and the bathroom window, and also noting issues with mould and cold temperatures in the property.
26. After receiving the letter of claim, the landlord transferred the case to its dedicated disrepairs team and arranged for a survey and follow up works. The records show that on 4 June 2024, the landlord’s disrepair team carried out works recommended by the surveyor. The works included painting the bathroom window and carrying out a mould wash and painting in the living room at the property. However, the landlord’s records note that the resident refused works planned by the disrepair team to repair the balcony door and frame as they were expecting that this would be replaced.
27. It was reasonable for the resident to expect that after several inspections and assurances by the landlord over the previous 12 months, the balcony door was going to be replaced, rather than repaired. The landlord had previously inspected the door on several occasions, undertaken a credible assessment of the condition of the door and frame, and concluded that it was beyond repair. The landlord should have undertaken the works it had previously assured the resident it would carry out to replace the door and frame.
28. In the stage 2 response on 12 June 2024, the landlord appropriately recognised and apologised for the fact that the repairs to the balcony door and bathroom window remained outstanding. It also recognised its poor communication, both with the resident and internally, and that the jobs had been cancelled several times by its contractors. It confirmed that its property surveyor had inspected the property on 5 June 2024, and confirmed that the balcony door unit and frame needed to be replaced but the bathroom window was repairable. The landlord appropriately explained that it was likely to take 2-3 months before the balcony door could be replaced, as it needed to be manufactured before installation. It was appropriate that the landlord apologised for this further delay and explained the next steps it would take. It gave a single direct contact to enable the resident to easily check on the progress of the works and explained how the landlord had provided feedback to the repairs team via its weekly meeting to ensure better communication in future.
29. The response also addressed the resident’s concern that the draughts and cold temperatures caused by the outstanding repairs issues had impacted the health of the family, in particular their young child. The landlord appropriately informed the resident in the stage 2 response that it would not deal with this issue under its complaints procedure. This is because it was specifically excluded under the landlord’s policy. However, the landlord went on to provide the resident with details of how to make a claim via the landlord’s public liability insurance policy, and details of the Council’s insurance team if they wanted to discuss the case before making a claim. This was an appropriate response from the landlord to the resident’s concerns about the impact of the ongoing repairs issues on the family’s health.
30. It was also appropriate that the landlord apologised to the resident for not recognising the increased impact of the situation on the resident due to the family’s vulnerability, in particular the resident’s disability and the fact that a young child lived in the home.
31. In light of the failings it had identified, it was reasonable for the landlord to apologise and offer compensation in the stage 2 complaint response. It was also appropriate that the landlord said it would carry out the outstanding repairs and monitor on a 4 weekly basis until all actions were complete.
32. In our view, the compensation previously awarded by the landlord in respect of the delay in completing the repairs was proportionate, at the time of the stage 2 response. This is because the sum of £890 awarded by the landlord to recognise the delay, distress and inconvenience, and time and effort, was in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for awards where there was a failure which had a significant impact on the resident.
33. If the repairs had been monitored and completed in line with the landlord’s assurances in the stage 2 response, this may have led us to find that the landlord had reasonably resolved the complaint. However, the landlord has confirmed that the repairs remain outstanding at the date of this report, a further 12 months after the stage 2 complaint response.
34. Section 7.3 of the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code states that the remedy offered by the landlord must clearly set out what will happen and by when, in agreement with the resident where appropriate. Any remedy proposed must be followed through to completion.
35. In this case, the remedy has not been followed through to completion, because effective repairs have not yet been carried out.
36. It is our opinion, having considered all the circumstances, that there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of repairs to the balcony door and bathroom window. This is because there has been a significant delay in completing the repairs, which remain outstanding at the date of this report. The landlord’s internal communication, and communication with its contractor was poor, it appeared confused as to what works needed to be done and which team was responsible for the repairs. It made repeated assurances that it would complete the works which it did not see through to action. Furthermore, even after belatedly recognising the resident’s vulnerability in its stage 2 response, the landlord did not subsequently demonstrate any increased urgency in completing the outstanding repairs.
37. Orders are set out below requiring the landlord to apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report, and to ensure that the outstanding repairs are completed as soon as possible.
38. In addition, the landlord is required to pay further compensation for the resident’s distress, inconvenience, time, and effort, up to the date of this report.
39. In the stage 2 response the landlord offered £40 for delays at stage 1, £500 for the impact, distress, and inconvenience caused, £250 for the delays in arranging the repairs, and £100 for the time and trouble pursuing this matter as well as the poor communication. This sum of £890 covered the 18 month period from December 2022 to June 2024, which is equivalent to a payment of £49 per month. As the repair has remained outstanding up to the date of this report, the landlord is required to pay the resident a further £588 in compensation, at a rate of £49 per month for a further 12 months.
40. The landlord must also repeat its previous offer to review the resident’s heating bills and offer compensation for any increased heating costs from 31 January 2023 to the date of the repair, if appropriate.

The handling of the resident’s complaint

41. A landlord’s complaint handling should aim to resolve issues quickly, effectively, and fairly. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out what good complaint handling looks like, and all landlords are expected to comply with this.
42. Under the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code, landlords are required to:
    1. Acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days.
    2. Respond to the complaint within 10 working days of acknowledgement. The landlord can extend this timeline up to a further 10 working days, providing the resident with a clear explanation for the reasons.
    3. Acknowledge an escalation request within 5 working days.
    4. Provide a final response within 20 working days of the date of acknowledgement. The landlord can extend this timeline up to a further 20 working days, providing the resident with a clear explanation for the reasons, along with a clear timeframe for when the response will be received.
43. At stage 1, the landlord responded within the timescales set out in the code. However, there was a delay at stage 2. The resident requested escalation of the complaint on 3 April 2024, and this request was acknowledged by the landlord on 4 April 2024. The response was due within 20 working days of the acknowledgement, by 2 May 2024, but was issued on 12 June 2024, 47 working days later. This was a delay of 27 working days.
44. The landlord appropriately acknowledged the delay and apologised to the resident in the stage 2 complaint response. It also offered £50 compensation for the delay in providing the stage 2 response.
45. In cases where the landlord has admitted failings and offered compensation, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord was adequate to put things right and resolve the failings in the landlord’s complaint handling satisfactorily.
46. In line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies, we consider that the sum of £50 previously offered to the resident by the landlord was reasonable, and adequately recognised the inconvenience caused to the resident by landlord’s delay in providing its stage 2 response. A finding of reasonable redress in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling is therefore set out below.

Determination

47. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the balcony door and bathroom window.
48. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the complainant, which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the failings identified in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

49. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must:
    1. Provide the resident with an apology for the failings outlined in this report. The apology should be drafted in line with the Ombudsman’s apologies guidance. A copy of the apology must be provided to the Ombudsman.
    2. Provide the Ombudsman with evidence that the replacement of the balcony door, window and frame has been carried out. A post works inspection must be carried out by the landlord to ensure the door is secure and lockable. A copy of the record of this inspection must be provided to the Ombudsman.
    3. Provide the Ombudsman with evidence that the outstanding works to the bathroom window have been carried out.
    4. Pay the resident the further sum of £588 in relation to its handling of repairs at the property. This payment is to be made in addition to the compensation of £990 previous offered by the landlord in the stage 2 response in relation to its handling of repairs, and failure to identify the resident’s vulnerability. Evidence of both payments must be provided to the Ombudsman.
    5. Repeat the landlord’s previous offer to review the resident’s heating bills and offer compensation for any increased heating costs from December 2023 to the date of the repair, if appropriate.

Recommendations

50. The landlord should pay the resident the sum of £50 in relation to complaint handling offered in the stage 2 response, if it has not already done so.