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

Westminster City Council (202326069)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202326069

Westminster City Council

31 May 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:
    1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of damp and mould in the bathroom.
    2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.
    3. The landlord’s response to the resident’s report of no heating in the bathroom following the completion of works.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant. The property is a 2-bedroom basement flat in a converted victorian house. There are no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident on the landlord’s records.
  2. The resident made a complaint on 20 October 2021. She said she told the landlord in March 2021 that there was damp and mould in her bathroom. She noted her property was converted into a flat and the damp was due to a design fault with the building. She said she found the situation distressing and wanted the bathroom restoring to its original condition.
  3. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 8 November 2021. It noted the resident reported damp and mould in the bathroom in May 2021 and it arranged for a survey to be completed. The results of the survey were received on 16 August 2021 and identified the brickwork in the bathroom needed exposing so the walls could be inspected. The landlord also said the property was still under warranty following the conversion and it asked the warrantor to rectify the issue on 8 November 2021. It apologised for the delay in progressing the matter. The complaint was upheld and the landlord said it would offer compensation once all the work had been completed.
  4. The resident asked for her complaint to be escalated on 10 January 2022. She said a surveyor visited In December 2021 and identified the damp proof membrane was damaged, but nothing had been done to resolve the damp issue.
  5. The landlord issued its final complaint response on 19 October 2022. It acknowledged it had taken too long to resolve the matter and apologised for this. It also said it had undertaken extensive investigations including removing the plasterboard so that the membrane could be inspected. This confirmed there were no faults with the installation works although two cuts were identified in the membrane which were repaired. The waste pipe was also re–sealed and the membrane flood tested. The landlord said the damp was due to condensation and there were no failures on its part in relation to the work that was carried out. The complaint was partially upheld due to the delays in identifying the cause of the damp and for poor communication. It offered the resident £570 compensation.

Post complaint events.

  1. The landlord arranged for an independent damp survey to be completed in July 2023 which revealed there was evidence of penetrative damp in the bathroom walls and wet rot in the skirting boards. It was recommended that a damp proof course was fitted to prevent moisture travelling up the walls. This work was carried out in December 2023.
  2. The resident’s complaint was accepted by this Service on 20 March 2024. She said the issue with damp and mould had been resolved, but she wanted more compensation given the delays in resolving the matter.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

  1. What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to this Service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 42(a) of the Scheme, this Service will not investigate the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s response to her report of no heating in the bathroom following the completion of works. This is because the Ombudsman may not investigate complaints that in the Ombudsman’s opinion ‘‘are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint-handling failure and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale.’’ In this case, the resident did not raise her complaint about the heating until over a year after she had exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of damp and mould in the bathroom.

  1. It is important to note that accurate record keeping is essential and helps ensure landlords meet their repair obligations. It also ensures accurate information is provided to residents. As a member of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord also has an obligation to provide this Service with sufficient information to enable a thorough investigation to be undertaken. In this case, the records provided by the landlord were limited and its poor record keeping has made it difficult to determine whether its actions were fair in the circumstances.
  2. In the absence of a repairs policy and damp and mould policy, this Service has used the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on damp and mould to determine whether the landlord’s actions were appropriate. This says landlords should take ‘’proactive interventions’’ in its approach to diagnosing damp and mould.
  3. The landlord has a duty to carry out repairs and works in accordance with the resident’s tenancy agreement. It also has an obligation to ensure it complies with the Housing, Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). The HHSRS does not specify any minimum standards, but it is concerned with avoiding, or minimising potential health hazards. Damp and mould are potential hazards that can fall within the scope of HHSRS. Landlords should be aware of their obligations under HHSRS and are expected to carry out additional monitoring of a property where potential hazards are identified. Whilst reasonable timescales are not defined in law, the potential health risks from damp and mould are significant.
  4. It is not disputed that the resident told the landlord there was damp and mould in her bathroom, although it is unclear from the housing records when the report was made. The resident said she first reported damp in March 2021, whilst the landlord noted the damp was not reported until May 2021. The landlord did not provide this Service with any repair records confirming this or a copy of the damp survey inspection report which it said was carried out in May 2021.
  5. There is also no evidence it confirmed the outcome of the visit with the resident. This was not appropriate. This Service’s spotlight review on damp and mould highlights the importance of landlords clearly communicating with residents and sharing relevant information to ensure they have confidence in it and understand the next steps. This includes explaining if follow up work is required and providing a clear timetable for any future works. If there is any slippage to the timetable, landlords are encouraged to inform residents as soon as possible and explain why the timetable has changed.
  6. Whilst the housing records confirm the landlord received a copy of the damp survey on 16 August 2021, there is no evidence it referred the issue to its warrantor and asked it to carry out the work at this point. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have done this given it said the property was still covered under the warranty and it did not want to invalidate it. The landlord’s failure to do this caused delays and inconvenience and distress for the resident.
  7. There is also no evidence the landlord monitored the property following receipt of the damp survey. The lack of engagement around the potential damp issue was contrary to the approach required under the HHSRS and the Ombudsman’s spotlight review. It also supports the resident’s view that the landlord was not taking her reports seriously and is further evidence that it did not adopt a proactive approach in seeking to resolve the issue for the resident.
  8. It was appropriate for the landlord to apologise for the delay in referring the matter to its warrantor on 8 November 2022 and for failing to keep the resident updated. The landlord has, however, not provided this Service with any evidence confirming the referral was made or details of what steps it took to chase up the warrantor. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have monitored the situation and provided the resident with an update. It would also have been appropriate for the landlord to have offered compensation at this point given it upheld the resident’s complaint.
  9. The housing records confirm a surveyor inspected the property in December 2021, although the landlord failed to provide this Service with a copy of the inspection report or details on the outcome of the visit. It is also unclear from the housing records whether the resident was provided with an update. This was a further failing in its handling of the matter and caused inconvenience to the resident, as she was unclear on the landlord’s position. This led to the resident having to escalate her complaint.
  10. There is no evidence the landlord responded to the resident’s email of 10 January 2022 in which she noted a surveyor visited her home in December 2021 and confirmed the damp was due to the damp proof membrane being damaged by the contractors who installed the bathroom. This was not in accordance with the landlord’s service standards which say it will respond to emails within 5 working days. The fact the landlord did not do so in this case was a service failure and evidence that it also failed to manage the resident’s expectations, which is a key part of a landlord’s service delivery.
  11. Whilst the housing records confirm the landlord agreed to contact the warrantor on 31 January 2022, there is no evidence it did so or provided the resident with an update. This was not appropriate and is further evidence of poor communication by the landlord.
  12. Whilst the landlord said it carried out extensive investigations to identify the source of the damp and mould in its final complaint response on 19 October 2022, it has not provided this Service with any evidence confirming what action it took or when. This indicates poor record keeping and information management practices by the landlord.
  13. Whilst the landlord said in its final complaint response that there were no issues with the installation works, this later proved to be incorrect and indicates the landlord failed to correctly diagnose the problem. The damp survey carried out by the independent surveyor in July 2023 found there was penetrative damp and wet rot in the bathroom. The issue was not resolved until December 2023; some 2 ½ years after the resident first reported the problem.
  14. In summary, the limited records have made it difficult to determine whether the landlord’s actions were in accordance with its policies and procedures. It is evident there were delays in progressing the matter, correctly diagnosing the cause of the damp and its communication with the resident was poor at times. Some of this this was acknowledged by the landlord and it offered an apology.
  15. The landlord’s offer of £550 compensation, however, was not proportionate in the circumstances and cannot be considered reasonable redress. It is evident the situation caused the resident distress and she was concerned about the implications of the damp and mould. In this case, there was maladministration by the landlord and it is ordered to pay the resident an additional £500 compensation on top of the amount already offered.  

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

  1. The housing records confirm the resident made a complaint on 20 October 2021. There is no evidence the landlord acknowledged the complaint. This was not in accordance with its complaints policy which says complaints will be acknowledged within 5 working days. Neither is there any evidence it sought to understand the resident’s complaint or the outcomes she was seeking. The Ombudsman’s complaints handling code says landlords should do this.
  2. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 8 November 2021. This was outside the 10-working day target set in its complaints policy. It was appropriate for the landlord to offer an apology. There is, however, no evidence it identified any learning from the complaint even though it was upheld. When considering how a landlord has responded to a complaint, this Service considers not just what has gone wrong, but also what the landlord has done to put things right in response to the complaint. This includes the steps the landlord has taken to address the shortcoming and prevent a reoccurrence, as well as any compensation offered. There is no evidence the landlord contacted the resident to discuss its offer of compensation even though it said it would do so once the repairs had been completed.
  3. The housing records confirm the resident asked for her complaint to be escalated on 10 January 2022. There is no evidence the escalation request was acknowledged by the landlord or that it sought to understand the resident’s concerns or the outcomes she was seeking. Neither did it tell her there would be a delay in responding. The landlord’s complaints policy says it will do this.
  4. The landlord did not issue its final complaint response until 19 October 2022, some 9 months after the resident asked for her complaint to be escalated. This delay was significantly outside the 20-working day target set in its complaints policy. It did not apologise for the delay in responding and there is no evidence it sought to understand the resident’s concerns or the outcomes she was seeking even though it said it did so. There is also no evidence it maintained contact with the resident through the course of the complaint investigation, which again it said it did.
  5. The landlord’s offer of £20 compensation for the delay in providing a response was not proportionate in the circumstances or in accordance with the landlord’s compensation policy. This says awards between £100 and £600 can be made where there has been a service failure which has had an impact on a resident and caused them a moderate degree of inconvenience or distress but no permanent impact.
  6. In summary, the landlord failed to follow its complaints policy and there was a significant delay in issuing its final complaint response. It also failed to identify any learning from the complaint. The delays caused the resident distress and inconvenience. In this case, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s report of damp and mould in the bathroom.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s response to her report of no heating in the bathroom following the completion of works is outside the jurisdiction of this Service.

Orders

  1. Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to offer an apology to the resident for the failings set out in this report. A copy of the apology letter must be shared with this Service.
  2. Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £1,170 compensation. This must be paid directly to the resident and made up as follows:
    1. £500 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its handling of her report of damp and mould in the bathroom.
    2. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its handling of her complaint.
    3. £570 previously offered to the resident by the landlord, if not already paid.
  3. Within twelve weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to undertake a review of this case. A summary of the review findings must be shared with the resident and this Service. The review must include (but is not limited to):
    1. A review of its record keeping practices in relation to damp and mould, with reference to the Ombudsman’s spotlight review on knowledge and information management.
    2. A review of its management oversight arrangements on reports of damp and mould.
    3. A self-assessment against the Ombudsman’s spotlight review on damp and mould.