Westminster Community Homes Limited (202416446)

REPORT

COMPLAINTS 202416446 & 202426714

Westminster Community Homes Limited

25 June 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 handling of the resident’s:
1. Reports of leaks.
2. Reports of squatters in a nearby property.
3. Request to be rehoused.
We have also assessed the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident has been an assured tenant of the landlord since 2011. The property is a 2-bedroom first–floor maisonette. The resident lives in the property with her family. The landlord is a housing association. The local authority is the managing agent for the delivery of housing services. For simplicity, as the landlord is responsible for these services, both will be referred to as ‘the landlord’ throughout the report.
On 18 January 2023, the resident told the landlord that it had installed the bath in the property unevenly, which had caused the sealant to crack. She asked it to return and re–seal the bath. An operative attended on 3 April 2023 They levelled and resealed the bath. The landlord then undertook a damp and mould inspection of the resident’s property on 11 August 2023. It listed the following necessary works:
1. Resealing all PVC doors and windows that led onto the balcony of the property.
2. Applying a mould wash to an internal wall and door.
3. Servicing the positive input ventilation unit.
4. Removing bathroom tiles to facilitate the installation of an access panel to the stop cock.
5. Applying a mould wash to the bathroom tiles and the area surrounding the bath.
The resident made 3 complaints to the landlord during the period that this investigation covers. For ease of reading, they will be referred to as the first, second and third complaint.
The resident made her first complaint on 5 September 2023. She said the landlord’s operative had arrived on 5 September 2023 and advised they could not conduct work because of the ongoing leak. They also advised they could not seal the windows from the outside to address the mould. The tiler then came but could not do the work because the carpentry had not been carried out. She said the visits had been a “complete waste of her time”. She felt the operatives would “say what they need to in order to get out of doing the job”. She added that she was a working mother, and the situation was causing her a lot of stress and anxiety. She said the jobs had been raised to address her complaint but weeks later nothing had been resolved.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 27 September 2023. It said:
1. Following a visit to the resident’s home on 11 August 2023, it had completed glazing repairs on 28 August 2023 as well as tiling and carpentry works on 29 August 2023.
2. A further visit took place on 5 September 2023, but no work could take place as the leak had not been fixed. As a result of the carpenter being unable to complete the work, the tiler was unable to complete the tiling.
3. Its surveyor attended on 5 September 2023 to inspect the works and was satisfied they had been completed to a good standard.
4. During that visit it had noted a number of new issues. It confirmed it was coordinating the work as it required several different trades. It would contact the resident to arrange appointments as soon as it had arranged the repairs.
5. It had raised a separate work order for the plumbing works to be progressed.
6. It apologised for the delay in responding to the resident’s complaint.
7. It offered £50 compensation. This was made up of £20 for complaint handling and £30 for the delay in repairing the leak.
The resident raised her second complaint about the leak on 4 June 2024. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 12 June 2024. It said she had reported the smell of damp in the kitchen on 20 May 2024. Its surveyor had visited on 28 May 2024, followed by an operative on 4 June 2024, who replaced the faulty waste pipe on the bath. It did not uphold the resident’s complaint as it found it had responded to the repair within the required timescales.
On 26 June 2024, the resident asked to escalate her first complaint to stage 2. She said the leak was still ongoing and had caused damp and damage to the living room. She suspected it was because of the newly installed electric shower. She told the landlord her neighbour was complaining because the water was entering their garage and damaging their belongings. She also said she was suffering from “an influx of flies and silverfish”.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response to the first complaint on 23 July 2024. It said:
1. The resident had reported damp and mould on 20 May 2024. A surveyor attended on 28 May 2024and found a leak under the bath. A plumber then attended on 4 June 2024 and replaced the faulty parts and bath panel.
2. The resident had contacted it again on 26 June 2024 because water was dripping through the kitchen ceiling. An operative attended on 27 June 2024 and found the area underneath the bath was dry, but water leaked through the tiles and sealer when the shower was in use.
3. The resident had contacted it on 3 July 2024 to advise the leak was ongoing. An emergency plumber attended and found a leak behind the wall. They advised that that the bath would need to be removed and an access hole made in the wall to reach the pipes. Before work could commence the landlord needed to conduct an asbestos test on the wall and pipe lagging. Asbestos tests were necessary to protect both the resident and its operatives.
4. It acknowledged that the resident had complained about the smell of mould. It would deliver a dehumidifier no later than 26 July 2024 to aid with the smell of damp.
5. Following remedial works, the damp and mould team would visit to treat any mould affected areas. A surveyor would then attend to assess the completed works and identify any follow-on works required.
6. It apologised that it had not adequately addressed the resident’s concerns in its stage 1 response. It offered £25 for the delay in arranging the asbestos inspection.
On 19 August 2024, the resident raised her third complaint. She said:
1. She had sent an email about a management transfer on 9 July 2024. She was told she would receive a response within 5 days, but had heard nothing back.
2. She had told the landlord about an empty property that had been causing problems 7 months ago, but it had taken no action. The property had become a drug den.
3. She had been assaulted many years ago. Now living next to such a property was causing her mental distress. It was also causing anxiety in her children.
4. Her family was suffering from an ongoing leak.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response to the third complaint on 25 September 2024. It said:
1. The resident had raised a management transfer request on 9 July 2023. It had closed the request in error and the housing officer had also missed a subsequent email from her. It acknowledged this was not acceptable and apologised.
2. Management transfers were used to move tenants in exceptional circumstances and typically supported by risk assessments provided by the police. However, it would complete the transfer paperwork and ask for a review to be undertaken.
3. Squatters had illegally occupied the property the resident had complained about. This required it to take legal action through the courts. It was therefore reliant on the court’s timescales, which it had no control over.
4. In June 2024 it had informed the resident that it had requested an increased police presence, which they had provided. It continued to communicate with the police on any other actions that could be implemented while it awaited a court date.
5. It acknowledged the resident had said that she continued to experience a leak in her property. It had already responded to this in previous complaints and referred her back to those responses. It confirmed it had arranged a further visit of her property.
6. It partially upheld the resident’s complaint because it had not responded to her management transfer request. It sincerely apologised for the error and offered £25 compensation.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response to the resident’s second complaint on 10 October 2024. It said:
1. Its response was in relation to her complaint on 4 June 2024 and subsequent escalation request on 29 August 2024. It confirmed the complaint was in relation to the delay in repairing the leak as well as the impact from the damp on the resident’s health and damage to her property.
2. It had inspected the leak within the required timescales and then conducted the necessary repairs on 4 June 2024.
3. An inspection had taken place shortly after the repairs, which confirmed it had fixed the leak.
4. The resident had raised a report about a different leak on 29 August 2024. A surveyor visited on 6 October 2024. They found a leak that was coming from a redundant gas boiler in the kitchen.
5. The delay in repairing the leak was due to the presence of asbestos in the cupboard housing the boiler. It had raised an order to have the asbestos and boiler removed.
6. Although it had taken the necessary actions, it recognised that it had exceeded its 28-day repair timescale.
7. In relation to the resident’s health, the inspection undertaken on 6 September 2024 did not identify any evidence of damp and mould. It was therefore not required to take any further action.
8. It offered the resident £70 compensation, comprised of:
  1. £50 for the delay in resolving the leak.
  2. £20 for the failure to keep the resident informed of the delays and the time and trouble she had experienced following up on the repair.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response to the resident’s third complaint on 30 October 2024. It clarified it was responding to the resident’s complaint made on 28 August 2024 and its stage 1 response on 25 September 2024. It said:
1. It accepted it had not resolved the repairs in a timely manner, some of which remained outstanding.
2. Due to the time that the leak and repairs had been ongoing, it was willing to offer the resident a permanent transfer to another 2-bedroom property when a vacancy became available.
3. On 10 October 2024 it had advised the resident that her name would not be mentioned in any court documents related to the antisocial behaviour (ASB) at the neighbouring flat. It intended to inspect the property and assess the camera that she had identified outside the neighbouring flat and her associated request to have it removed.
4. It concluded that it had not kept the resident updated on the matters taking place at the neighbouring property.
5. She could contact the police directly if she had any concerns.
6. It acknowledged the resident’s request to have an intercom system installed in the block, but said that there were no plans to install one.
7. It upheld the resident’s complaint and increased its offer of compensation to £100.

Events post internal complaints procedure

Since the landlord’s stage 2 response to the third complaint on 30 October 2024, the resident has made further complaints to the landlord. We are aware that the leaks have been resolved but that the repairs to rectify the damage caused are continuing.
The landlord went on to progress the resident’s management transfer request and delivered its response on 4 November 2024. This has been assessed below.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The resident brought a previous complaint to the Ombudsman about a leak in her kitchen in January 2022 (our reference 202116473). The resident’s previous complaint will not form part of this investigation. This is because the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which seek to raise again matters which the Housing Ombudsman, or any other Ombudsman, has already decided upon.
This report incorporates 2 separate cases brought to this Service by the resident. The investigation will focus on events between January 2023, when the resident contacted the landlord about the defective sealant around the bath, and 12 November 2024, when it provided a response to her management transfer request. We are aware that the resident has since brought a further complaint to the Ombudsman. However, that complaint has not reached a stage where it can be investigated. As such, we will not consider it here.
The Ombudsman is unable to consider or assess the actions and decisions made by the local authority’s lettings teams. This is in relation to matters concerning the resident’s housing register application and banding. These complaints are more suitable for consideration by the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO). Before bringing a complaint to the LGSCO, the resident will likely need to have made a complaint to the local authority first. However, we can consider the landlord’s handling of her management transfer request.
In the resident’s complaint and correspondence to this Service, she detailed how she felt the landlord’s inaction had impacted on her and her children’s physical and mental health. We are unable to make a determination about any causal link between the landlord’s actions and the health impacts described. Instead, we will consider the overall distress and inconvenience that the landlord’s handling of the issues in this case may have caused. A finding relating to damages caused to the resident and her family’s health is more appropriate for the courts or a personal injury insurance claim, and the resident has the option to seek legal advice if she wishes to pursue this.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of leaks

When investigating a complaint, we apply our Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes.
The landlord has a responsibility under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS), introduced by the Housing Act 2004, to assess hazards and risks within its rented properties. A property with dampness and/or high humidity can pose threats to health from associated mould or fungal growths, resulting in the presence of a category 1 or 2 hazard. The principle underlying the HHSRS is that any residential premises should provide a safe healthy environment for any potential occupier or visitor. To satisfy this principle, the landlord must ensure the dwelling is free from both unnecessary and avoidable hazards.
Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 places a statutory obligation on the landlord to keep the structure of the property in repair. This responsibility is confirmed in the resident’s tenancy agreement.
The landlord’s repairs policy says it is responsible for most plumbing, heating and electrical work. It states that it will attend to “immediate” repair jobs which pose an immediate health and safety risk within 24 hours, and to “urgent” jobs “which negatively impact on an occupant’s access to utilities or need repair such as a blocked bath” in 1 to 7 days. Non–urgent repairs are classed as “routine”. These will be attended to and repaired within 28 calendar days.
The landlord’s compensation policy says it will offer “ex gratia” awards of £50 to £100 for “low impact” failures, awards of £100 to £600 for “medium impact failures”, and awards of £600 to £1,000 for “high impact” failures.
The landlord has provided little evidence of its contractor’s visits or repair records. A significant proportion of the evidence is from the landlord’s emails, complaint responses and the resident’s subject access request (SAR), which she submitted as part of her evidence. It is good practice for a landlord to maintain accurate, contemporaneous records on reports it receives, and its actions in response. This enables it to effectively manage any issues raised by its residents as well as fulfilling its obligations as a landlord. If there is disputed evidence and no audit trail, we may not be able to conclude that an action took place or that the landlord followed its own policies and procedures.

Bathroom leak

On 18 January 2023, the resident reported that her bath was not level and that the silicone around the bath was cracking. It appears from the evidence that it was not until 4 April 2023 that an operative attended to address the issue. This was a period of 77 calendar days, which unreasonably exceeds the 28–calendar–day target in the landlord’s repairs policy. In addition, the operative conducting the repair highlighted that the material previously used to seal the bath was decorator’s caulk and not silicone as required. This product was unsuitable as a sealant and demonstrates evidence of a poor repair conducted by the landlord in 2022. The defective repair caused unnecessary time and trouble for the resident chasing the landlord to have the bath resealed.
The records do not make clear when the resident next contacted the landlord. However, it conducted an inspection on 11 August 2023 and identified several issues that it needed to rectify. These included the installation of a panel in the bathroom to provide ready access to the stopcock, and a damp and mould wash of the bathroom and bath. On 5 September 2023, the contractor attended to install the access panel. Upon inspecting the bathroom, they told the resident they could not proceed because the leak had not been repaired. This subsequently prevented the tiler from completing their work.
Again, the records do not show when the leak was reported or when it was meant to be repaired. However, the failure to fix the leak before instructing other trades to conduct repairs shows poor work planning and communication between the landlord and contractor. This caused the resident unnecessary frustration and distress.
Notes from the operative’s visit on 5 September 2023 stated that the landlord needed to decide what to do with the shower screen and PVC infill at the end of the bath, as it was “still leaking and damaging the boxing”. On 28 September 2023, the resident reported that the mould wash in the bathroom had been unsuccessful. A further inspection was undertaken on 3 October 2023. During the inspection the surveyor noted that the shower screen leaked after every use and that a further mould wash was required as well as resealing the bath again. All these works had been undertaken previously, which indicates ongoing issues with the landlord’s oversight of the work and a failure to conduct lasting repairs. This caused the resident additional time, trouble, and frustration having to take time away from work for repeated visits.
The landlord raised a works order on 4 October 2023 to assess the leak from the shower screen. The records do not indicate whether an inspection took place. However, on 9 October 2023, the resident again told the landlord that the shower screen was leaking every time someone used the shower. It raised another order to check the shower on 10 October 2023. The leak with the shower screen was highlighted by the operative on 5 September 2023. The property contains only 1 bathroom. The shower was therefore important for a family of 5 people. The landlord’s failure to conduct the repair within the 28–calendar–day target in the repairs policy was unreasonable.
On 2 May 2024, the resident reported a slow leak from under the sink in the bathroom. The landlord visited and installed a new shower on 7 May 2024. On 13 May 2024, the resident told it that the shower model was different and would require follow–on tiling works around the shower. On 28 May 2024, she reported a leak from the bathroom coming through her kitchen ceiling, likely from the newly installed shower. The landlord raised an emergency plumbing job the same day, which was appropriate. An operative visited on 4 June 2024 and replaced a defective waste pipe. This again was appropriate and within the landlord’s required timescales for an urgent repair.
On 26 June 2024, the resident told the landlord that the water was still leaking through the ceiling. An operative visited the next day and found that water was leaking through the tiles and PVC infill at the end of the bath. They said that the bath would have to be removed and re-fitted level with the wall as well as new boxing around the wash hand basin. These again were works that had already taken place. An operative had levelled the bath in April 2023. The operative who visited on 5 September 2023 had specifically mentioned the leak through the infill panel. Also, the resident had told the landlord that tiling works were required due to the new shower. This was additional evidence of poor repairs and workmanship that gave rise to avoidable visits and disruption. The leak had been ongoing at this point for 9 months and had continued to cause the resident distress and inconvenience.
Notes from 6 August 2024 confirmed that the shower screen was still leaking. The operative also stated that they believed there was a leak on a communal mains pipe inside the wall. In the resident’s stage 2 escalation on 29 August 2024, she told the landlord she had been left with an unresolved leak since May 2024. She said the leak was affecting her health, ruining the decoration in her property, and causing the walls in the kitchen to swell.
A further inspection on 6 September 2024 confirmed the need to open the wall in the bathroom to explore possible leaks on the internal pipes. However, the inspection also noted 2 small leaks under the bath. Additionally, it required the bath to be resealed again and for the grout on the access panel over the bath to be raked out and re-applied (previously undertaken in 2023). The number of times the same jobs had to be repeated in this case raises cause for concern regarding the effectiveness of the landlord’s repairs. Overall, the evidence shows that there was an ongoing leak in the resident’s bathroom for over a year. This time frame was unacceptable and demonstrates the landlord’s failure to comply with its repair timescales.

Leak on the redundant boiler

On 11 November 2023, the landlord confirmed it had received the resident’s request for the redundant boiler to be removed from the kitchen cupboard. It said it would contact her within 3 days, but has not shown evidence it did so. The landlord subsequently inspected the property on 19 December 2023. During the inspection the resident made a further request for the boiler to be removed. There is no evidence that the landlord actioned this request or informed the resident of its decision, which was unreasonable and likely left her feeling unheard.
On 3 July 2024, the resident told the landlord that she had damp in the living room and cupboards in the kitchen. She said the leak was going through the floor into her neighbour’s garage below. On 8 July 2024, the resident told the landlord that she had asked for the redundant boiler to be removed several times. She said she was aware there was asbestos on the cupboard door that housed the boiler. The results of an asbestos survey dated 9 July 2024 confirmed that asbestos insulating board was present in the cupboard. The report stated the board should be removed under controlled conditions and confirmed the risk as “very low”. The landlord’s request for a pre–work survey in relation to the asbestos was appropriate.
During an inspection on 8 September 2024, the landlord found 2 leaks on the pipes of the redundant boiler. An operative visited on 19 September 2024 to assess the leak. They advised work had to stop because they had located asbestos in the cupboard. No work on the leak could take place until the asbestos had been removed. An asbestos management survey undertaken in March 2023 had identified asbestos insulating board in the cupboard, as did the asbestos refurbishment survey report produced on 9 July 2024. The operative being unaware that asbestos was present before the visit demonstrates poor communication between the landlord and contractor.
An order was raised on 19 September 2024 for a further asbestos survey, the removal of the asbestos and the redundant boiler. After being pursued by the resident’s local councillor, the landlord realised that the work had not progressed. It emailed its contractor on 23 October 2024 to chase this up. The emails demonstrate that there had been a communication breakdown between the parties. The ongoing poor communication led to further unnecessary delays that caused the resident avoidably prolonged distress and inconvenience.
The landlord’s records are unclear, but it appears the asbestos was removed by 31 October 2024 and the redundant boiler prior to 21 November 2024. While there was no direct responsibility for the landlord to remove the boiler, it would be responsible for ensuring it had not deteriorated to the point where it was causing damage to the property. Given the resident’s request for it to remove the boiler, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have inspected it and assessed whether removal was necessary or not. Had this taken place in November 2023, it is likely the leak could have been avoided, as well as the damage caused and the negative impacts on the resident.
The resident has raised concerns regarding the asbestos and the landlord’s actions in having it removed. We understand that asbestos being present in a property can be worrying for residents. However, from the investigation it is clear the landlord conducted several asbestos surveys, which would comply with its legal obligations. Further, it instructed specialist contractors to have the asbestos removed. It is reasonable for a landlord to rely on works/assessments of appropriately qualified contractors for assessing and removing asbestos from its properties. We have found no issue with the landlord’s actions in relation to its handling of the asbestos.

Conclusion

The ongoing leaks in the property caused the resident issues with damp and mould. Between 11 August 2023 and 3 October 2024, the landlord conducted 8 mould washes in the property. The significant number of mould washes highlights the high moisture levels in the property and should have guided the landlord to complete a more in-depth investigation sooner, especially as it had already conducted significant work in 2022. In its response to this investigation the landlord said: “The inspection carried out on the property on 6 September 2024, did not find any evidence of damp and mould, so there was no requirement for further action in this instance.” This was not correct. Notes from the inspection stated, “Water leaking through kitchen and lounge area… Walls and ceiling are saturated.” They also confirmed that the landlord had undertaken further mould washes on 24 September 2024. In addition, a damp and mould surveyor visited on 1 October 2024 with a subsequent mould wash taking place on 3 October 2024. This suggests the landlord was not examining the appropriate records or was simply not aware of the issues, both of which are unacceptable.
The landlord’s response highlighted above aligns with the narrow focus of its complaint responses. In each complaint it focused on the leak that it was investigating at that point rather than the resident’s actual complaints and evidence, which demonstrated that she had been suffering from leaks since September 2023 at the latest. As the reports continued there was a theme of repeated works, which could highlight ineffective repairs. The ongoing leaks led to damage to the property itself and the resident’s belongings. We would have expected the landlord to have recognised this and taken a wider view of the issues, reflecting upon the significant impact on the resident and her family. Not doing so led to offers of compensation that did not reflect the failures or negative impact on the resident. Neither did the offers of compensation align with the landlord’s compensation procedure. This was a failure to put things right for the resident. For these reasons we have made a finding of maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of leaks in her property.
As a result, we have made an award of £700 compensation. The amount aligns with the high impact band in the landlord’s compensation policy. The amount is also in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance (published on our website), which sets out our approach to compensation. The remedies guidance recommends awards of this level where there has been a failure that had a significant impact on the resident.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of squatters in a nearby property

The landlord’s ASB policy states the landlord will conduct the following actions when it receives a new report of ASB:
1. Assess whether the report meets the definition of ASB. ASB includes “a person acting in a manner that causes or is likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress to any person”.
2. If the report is about genuine ASB, the landlord must:
  1. Assess the priority of the reported incident and refer immediately to the ASB team if there is a risk of danger to the reporting party or someone else.
  2. Complete a risk assessment and update it after each contact with the reporting party.
  3. Agree an action plan with the reporting party and keep it under review.
As with the repairs element of this investigation, the landlord has provided little in the way of records or evidence surrounding the resident’s reports of ASB. It is clear that she notified the landlord in February 2024 that squatters had occupied a flat on the same landing as her property. In this situation we consider the resident’s reports of people using the landing and stairwell as a toilet and potential drug dealing at the neighbouring property met the landlord’s policy definition of ASB. We would therefore expect the landlord to have conducted a risk assessment with the resident and to produce an action plan as set out within its policy. Not doing so was unreasonable and likely left the resident feeling uncertain how the issue would be resolved.
The landlord contacted the resident on 7 June 2024 to check if problems were still being caused in the block. The resident said there had still been activity but that things had improved. However, she outlined that there was still excrement by the entry and urine present on the landing. The resident said she had noted the extra patrols in the area and that they were appreciated. The landlord advised it would push the police and its own teams to increase the patrols. Its communication was appropriate and demonstrated that it was taking some action and had engaged its partners, in line with its policy.
The resident contacted the landlord again on 17 June 2024. She advised there were several different males coming and going from the squatted property. She said that she felt very uneasy about the situation and expected that it was only a matter of time before “something bad happened”. The landlord responded the same day. It said its housing team was working with the police to arrange a date to attend and secure the property once the occupants had been removed. It was positive the landlord shared this information as it likely provided the resident with reassurance that it was considering a long–term solution.
The landlord checked in with the resident again on 5 July 2024. On 11 July 2024, she told it that there was frequent urination in the building, drug addicts were present, and there were various people coming and going from the squatted property. On 12 July 2024 she sent a further email advising that there was human excrement on her landing. With ongoing ASB we would expect the landlord to have visited the block to assess the conditions the resident was reporting and gather evidence. This would allow it to update the risk assessment in line with its policy. We would also expect it to communicate with the resident at least weekly, which is the timeframe listed in the ASB policy. However, there is no evidence that the landlord responded to the resident’s emails or implemented any actions, which was unreasonable in the circumstances of the case.
On 19 August 2024, the resident told the landlord of her previous experiences and that current situation was causing her distress. There is no evidence that it responded to this or otherwise followed up with her. This likely left her feeling unsupported and unheard. There was no further communication until the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response to the resident’s third complaint on 25 September 2024. This was a failure to comply with its ASB policy which requires at least weekly contact. In the response it said that it was waiting on a court date and that it had requested an increased police presence in June 2024. It advised it would continue to discuss the issue with the police. It did not uphold the resident’s complaint. In its stage 2 response on 30 October 2024, the landlord concluded that it had not kept the resident updated or assured her on its actions. It offered £100 compensation. However, the sum was divided between 3 complaint points and the division of the amount was not made clear. It is therefore not possible to know what portion was allocated to the failures associated with the ASB reports.
Additionally, the resident enquired about the installation of an intercom system. In response the landlord advised that such a system would be assessed on need and feasibility, local authority approval, and leaseholder contributions. It concluded by saying “at present there are no plans for this to be implemented”. Listing the steps in the process did not constitute grounds for refusing the request. We accept that the landlord has the right to refuse such an installation and that it is up to it to decide how it directs its resources. However, it would have been reasonable for it to have explained its position to the resident to help her understand the reason behind the decision. Even with the increased patrols, the resident continued to experience ASB, which was likely the reason for suggesting an intercom system. Her ongoing reports indicate that the increased patrols, in isolation, were not sufficient to stop the ASB from taking place. Having refused the intercom system the landlord could have considered other measures listed in its policy, such as overt CCTV, which could have provided a deterrent to those accessing the landing.
The landlord has not shown that it communicated with the resident when she first reported the ASB. It has provided evidence to demonstrate that there were some emails in June and July 2024, but again there is little evidence of communication in the latter stages of the complaint. The lack of communication, while recognised by the landlord, was both unreasonable and a failure to comply with its ASB policy. In addition, it did not show that it produced a risk assessment and action plan or updated either as the case progressed, which are both requirements of its policy. The omission of these important steps was a missed opportunity to provide a robust victim-centred approach, which was inappropriate given the resident’s information on her previous experiences.
It is acknowledged that the landlord was seeking action through the courts, and we agree that this was an important step. However, it also confirmed that obtaining a court date would likely be a lengthy process. As such, we would have expected it to follow the steps in its policy and to have supported the resident, where possible, until the issues had been satisfactorily resolved. Overall, the landlord’s actions have resulted in a finding of maladministration.
We have made an award of £200 compensation. This aligns with the landlord’s policy where there has been failure that has caused a moderate degree of inconvenience and distress. The award is also in line with our remedies guidance.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to be rehoused

The landlord’s management transfer process is contained within its housing allocations policy. It states that management transfers are only considered in exceptional circumstances where there is a threat of violence, actual violence or racial harassment. A management transfer form is completed and the application heard by a panel of managers from within the landlord’s organisation.
The information leaflet on the landlord’s website confirms that management transfers will not be considered for repairs or damp and mould. In addition, it states that management transfers are not suitable for resolving overcrowding issues other than when facing the risks described above. If a transfer is approved on the basis of risk and the household is overcrowded by 2 bedrooms or more, a larger property will be offered (for example, a 2-bedroom property with a 4–bedroom need. In this situation the ‘larger’ property offered will be a 3-bedroom property).
The resident emailed the landlord on 9 July 2024. She said the repairs and overcrowding were having a severe impact on her health. She wanted to discuss the possibility of a management transfer. Inappropriately, the landlord did not respond to her request or provide any information surrounding the process and what would be considered as part of the request. As a result, the resident raised a complaint on 19 August 2024. It is unreasonable that a resident is required to complain to obtain a response to their requests for information. We expect landlords to respond promptly to requests and enquiries and within their published timescales.
In its stage 1 response to the resident’s third complaint, the landlord acknowledged that it had closed her management transfer request in error and then missed another email from her. For its errors it apologised and offered £25 compensation. It also advised that it would complete the management transfer paperwork and ask for a review of her request, which was fair in light of the errors. However, it went on to advise the resident that transfers were used to move tenants in exceptional circumstances and were typically supported by a police risk assessment. It advised that her circumstances did not appear to be exceptional and it was unlikely a transfer would be approved. It was appropriate that the landlord provided this information in order to manage the resident’s expectations.
In its stage 2 response to the resident’s third complaint on 30 October 2024, the landlord offered the resident a permanent transfer to another 2-bedroom property. It said that the property was being offered due to the time it had taken to resolve the leak and the associated repairs. As the resident was awaiting a hearing on a management transfer, it was likely confusing for her to understand why this offer was being made. On 31 October 2024 she refused the landlord’s offer. She said she had been on the housing list as a 3-bedroom need since 2015. She confirmed she did not want to accept due to the upheaval of moving which may be followed by a further move when a larger property became available. She also said that she cared for her disabled mother, who lived close by, and that her children went to school locally. The resident also supplied a supporting letter from her GP highlighting the impacts on her mental health from her property and the squatting in a nearby property.
The landlord responded the same day. If offered the resident a 3-bedroom property within the same borough that met her current housing need. It advised it did not have any 4-bedroom properties available. It said that, once eligible for a 4-bedroom need, the resident would have to follow the transfer process. It confirmed that the offer of the 3-bedroom property would be its final offer. While the offer was again outside the management transfer process, it was reasonable and consistent with what the resident was likely to be offered if her management transfer application was successful.
On 4 November 2024, the resident refused the landlord’s offer of the 3-bedroom property. She said she wanted to move somewhere locally that was mould–free, where the family would not have to consider moving again. The resident asked if any 4-bedroom properties were available.
The landlord contacted the resident on 12 November 2024. It said:
1. Its discretionary offer of a 3-bedroom property was its final offer based on its response to her complaint. As she had rejected this offer it had now been withdrawn.
2. Based on her current housing needs, she did not meet the criteria for a 4-bedroom property. Further, the landlord had no 4-bedroom properties available.
3. The transfer panel had thoroughly assessed the resident’s management transfer request. This had been declined as she did not meet the criteria for re-housing.
The landlord had been open with the resident regarding the likelihood of her application being approved. It had made an offer of a larger property within the same borough. We understand the resident’s wish to move locally. However, as a central London authority the landlord has limited properties, all of which are in high demand. In its final offer to the resident, it stated clearly that it did not have any 4-bedroom properties available.
The landlord acknowledged it had originally closed the resident’s management transfer request in error. It apologised and offered £25 compensation. It then went on to make 2 alternative housing offers to the resident that it was not required to do. It advised the resident it could not meet her request for a 4-bedroom property and reasonably offered a 3-bedroom property. We find that the landlord’s actions in handling the resident’s request to be rehoused amount to reasonable redress.

Complaint handling

The landlord has a 2–stage complaints procedure. It states it will acknowledge all complaints within 5 working days and respond at stage 1 within 10 working days. At stage 2 it will respond within 20 working days. If more time is required, it will communicate this delay to the complainant.
In the resident’s first complaint, the landlord’s stage 1 response was issued 6 working days outside its target. It acknowledged the delay in the response and offered £20 compensation, which was appropriate. The stage 2 response to the resident’s first complaint was issued within the target timescale.
The stage 1 response to the resident’s second complaint was also issued within the policy timescale. However, the stage 2 response was issued 45 working days after the resident had escalated the complaint. The landlord did not notify her of the delay or acknowledge it in its stage 2 response. This was a failure to comply with its complaint policy and the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’). It was the same with the stage 1 response to the resident’s third complaint, which was issued 16 working days outside the target timeline. There was also no communication with the resident about the delay or acknowledgement of it in the complaint response, which was unreasonable.
The delays in a number of the responses have led to us making a finding of service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.
We have made an award of £100 compensation. The amount is in line with both the landlord’s compensation policy and our guidance where there was a failure resulting in some impact on the resident.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of:
1. Leaks.
2. Squatters in a nearby property.
In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to be rehoused.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders

Within 4 weeks from the date of this report, the landlord must:
1. Provide a written apology from a senior manager to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The apology must meet the criteria highlighted in the Ombudsman’s apologies guidance.
2. Pay the resident a total of £1,000 compensation. This is inclusive of the £215 already offered. It must be paid directly to the resident and not offset against arrears. It is comprised of:
  1. £700 for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble associated with the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of leaks.
  2. £200 for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble associated with the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of squatters in a nearby property.
  3. £100 for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble associated with the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.
3. Contact the resident to conduct a risk assessment and produce an action plan, if the issue with the squatters has not been resolved. A copy of both should be supplied to the resident and this Service. If the issue has been resolved, the landlord should confirm this to us.
Within 6 weeks from the date of this report the landlord must review the security at the resident’s block and determine if any other measures are required to address the ASB. The landlord should produce a written report of the review that outlines its considerations and decisions. A copy of the report must be provided to the resident and this Service.