Westminster City Council (202334043)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202334043

Westminster City Council

12 September 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs needed to the property after the start of the tenancy.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident has held a flexible tenancy with the landlord since 31 July 2023. The landlord is a local authority. The property is a 2 bedroom maisonette. The resident lives with her children who are aged 1 and 8.
The resident reported to the landlord on 3 August 2023, that a radiator was leaking in the property. She further reported, on 4 August 2023, that she had not heating or hot water as the landlord had not uncapped the gas prior to her moving in. The landlord attended the same day to rectify both issues.
On 11 August 2023, the resident reported that her bath was not draining. She further reported on 14 August 2023 that the bath panel had come off and a further radiator leak. The landlord attended on 15 August 2023 to undertake the repairs. The contractor found that the bathroom required further works and raised an asbestos survey for under the bath.
The resident reported further blockages in her toilet and bath throughout August 2023 and on 12 September 2023 reported that the sewage was surging through the toilet into her property. The attending contractor found that the toilet required resealing. The landlord raised a further asbestos survey.
The resident raised a formal complaint on 27 September 2023. They key points were as follows:
1. She had moved into the property on 31 July 2024 when there had been no hot water.
2. The landlord had not yet resolved blockages in the property. At one stage it had flooded the property with sewage which had caused damaged to the ceilings and meant the electrics buzzed.
3. The boiler had not worked after engineers had attended, radiators were hanging off the walls and the property smelt damp.
4. The resident asked the landlord to move her as a resolution.
On 29 September 2023 and 2 October 2023, the resident reported further blockages in the toilet meaning sewage was back surging into the property. The landlord arranged a decant on 6 October 2023.
The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 18 October 2023. They key points were as follows:
1. The landlord was sorry it had not found the leaking radiator, reported on 3 August 2023 in the pre-letting inspection; However, it confirmed it had resolved the issue the following day.
2. The landlord had uncapped the gas on 4 August 2023. It apologised that it had not informed the resident that the gas required uncapping prior to moving in. It confirmed it had fitted a new thermostat on 26 September 2023 but apologised it had not fitted this within the agreed timescales as per its repairs policy.
3. The resident had reported further issues with a leaking toilet and a broken bath panel on 14 August 2023. It confirmed it had attended on 23 August 2023 to rectify the issue with the bath panel.
4. It gave a history of the repair with regards to the blocked toilet. It said its leak detection team had attended on 5 October 2023 and found a leak between the resident’s flat and another. The landlord confirmed it needed a further asbestos test prior to any repairs being undertaken.
5. It confirmed a temporary decant began on 6 October 2023 as it could not resolve the blockage. It understood the resident was receiving £45 per day towards food and confirmed it would make good any damages caused.
6. It offered compensation of £185, made up of the following:
  1. £25 for not reinstating the gas supply prior to the resident moving in.
  2. £40 for missed appointments on 7 September & 13 September 2023.
  3. £40 for the overall delays.
  4. £60 for the distress & Inconvenience
  5. £20 for providing a late Stage 1 Response.
The resident requested escalation to stage 2 of the complaints process on 25 October 2023. She said the issues are still ongoing and felt the landlord had no sense of urgency to resolve the issues. She said the issues had affected her work life and her wellbeing. She said living in a hotel meant she had no money to function, she could not cook for her children or clean their clothes.
The resident moved back to the property on 30 October 2023. She contacted the landlord on 16 November 2023 to say she had filled in the discretionary forms for the monies owed from the decant. She said further leaks had occurred and the landlord had left her life in “utter shambles.”
The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 7 December 2023. The key points were as follows:
1. It confirmed the landlord inspected the property and it had fixed the identified issues prior to the resident viewing the property. However, it could appreciate why the resident felt the property was not in a good condition due to the issues found since moving in. It confirmed it was reviewing its voids process.
2. It empathised with the level of worry, distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.
3. It confirmed it was due to address the outstanding repairs on 12 December.
4. It confirmed it had resolved the issues with the gas supply, blocked waste pipe, radiator leak, bath panel and blocked toilet.
5. It was disappointed to read that the resident felt pressured to move into the property and said it had discussed the resident’s concerns with the housing officer.
6. With regards to the decant, it was sorry for the inconvenience caused.
7. The landlord apologised for the poor service it had given and said it had found multiple failings in its communication.
As part of the complaint, it offered the resident a total of £1250 in compensation, made up of the following:
1. £750 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the reoccurring repair issues and the impact this had on the resident and her young children
2. £350 for the delays in completing the works.

£150 for the poor complaint handling and time and trouble pursing this matter.

Assessment and findings

Policies and procedures

The tenancy handbook sets out that the landlord handles repairs to the drains and sanitary fittings and for repairs that involve the supply of water, gas, and electricity.
It sets out that it would respond to immediate issues within 24 hours. It said examples of such issues are exposed raw sewage, lack of toilet facilities and blocked drains.
It sets out that it would respond to urgent repairs within 3 working days. Examples of such issues are blocked sinks, baths, or basins.
It sets out that non-urgent repairs would be attended to and complete within 28 working days. Examples of such issues are joinery, plastering or structural work.
The landlords decant procedure, sets out that where planned work is likely to cause disruption or dust, to the extent that rooms or facilities will be unusable for more than 1 day or overnight, it would arrange a decant.
The landlord has a 2 stage complaints procedure. The landlord will acknowledge all complaints within 2 working days. The landlord will respond to complaints at stage 1 within 10 workings. It will respond to complaints at stage 2 within 20 working days. Should the landlord need more time, it will communicate this delay to the resident.

Repairs

Where a resident reports repairs in a property to the landlord, the Ombudsman will look at the landlord’s response to those repairs. This will include an examination of the landlord’s communication with a resident and whether it followed its policies when responding to the reported issues.
On 3 August 2023, the resident reported a leaking radiator in the property. The landlord attended to rectify the issue within 24 hours. This was in line with its policy and appropriate in the circumstances.
On 4 August 2023, 4 days after the resident moved into the property, she reported that she had no heating or hot water in the property. The landlord had not uncapped the gas prior to the resident moving in. While it is best practice for a landlord to uncap a property’s gas supply prior to the resident moving in, the Ombudsman understands that it does not always happen. In this case, the landlord responded the same day to resolve the issue. This was in line with its policy and reasonable in the circumstances.
On 7 August 2023, the resident reported that a handle was lose on the kitchen cupboard. The landlord attended, in line with its policy, to rectify the issue on 14 September 2023.
On 11 August 2023, the resident reported that there was a blockage in the bath and therefore not draining properly. The landlord attended, in line with its policy, within 2 working days on 15 August 2023.
During the inspection, the landlord discovered that the pipes under the bath needed works and appropriately ordered an asbestos survey to ensure it could complete the works safely. The evidence shows that the landlord requested the survey the next working day. This highlighted a commitment to swiftly resolve the issues for the resident.
The resident reported a blockage to the bath on 29 August 2023; however, the evidence suggests that a contractor did not attend to clear the blockage until 6 September 2023. This was 6 working days after the resident had reported the issue and therefore not in line with the landlord’s policy. Furthermore, there is no evidence to suggest that the landlord communicated reasons for any delay to the resident. Landlords need to ensure that they attend to urgent repairs within the set timescales, not doing so left the resident unable to use her bath which would have been particularly inconvenient due to having 2 young children in the property.
The resident then reported, on 12 September 2023, that a blockage in the toilet had occurred. A contractor attended and said a CCTV survey was needed to find the cause of the issue. Given that a blockage in the system was reoccurring, it was appropriate for the landlord to escalate its response and undertake further investigations. This highlighted a commitment by the landlord to find a resolution for the resident.
On the evening of the 12 September 2023, the resident reported that the blockage had reoccurred, and sewage was back surging into the property. The contractor attended on 13 September 2023. This was not in line with its policy, which says it would attend such issues within 4 hours. However, the landlord appropriately apologised for this delay in its complaint response.
It was at this appointment that the contractor found that it needed to remove and reseal the toilet. This raised the need for a further asbestos survey. The landlord ordered this on 14 September 2023. The evidence shows that the resident then chased the landlord for updates over the following week. Landlords need to ensure they have effective systems in place to communicate with residents in order manage their expectations around repair timescales. By this point the resident had suffered many leaks and blockages and it would have been distressing waiting for the landlord to undertake works to clear the blockage.
The landlord completed the work to remove the pipework and clear the blockage on 25 September 2023, which was 12 working days after the resident first reported the issue on 7 September 2023. This response was in line with the landlord’s repairs policy and therefore, reasonable. Although it was not an ideal situation for the resident, as the blockages kept reoccurring, the landlord attended each time to clear the blockage and worked swiftly to ensure a prompt resolution of the issue.
The resident reported further blockages again 29 September 2023 and 2 October 2023. The Ombudsman understands that a landlord must follow a process when dealing with reoccurring issues. In this case, it had undertaken works to clear the blockage, but these had not been successful. Where any resolutions are not successful, the Ombudsman would expect to see the landlord escalate the issue and undertake further investigations to find a solution. In this case, the landlord arranged for a leak detection team to attend the resident’s property to resolve the issue. This showed a commitment by the landlord to resolve the issue.
Furthermore, once the contractor found that the issue was between the resident’s flat and another, it raised the required works as urgent. This was in line with its policy and appropriate in the circumstances.
As the landlord was unable to resolve the blockage, the landlord appropriately arranged for a decant for the resident and her children. The resident declined the original decant as it was too far away for her to travel due to childcare and work. The landlord appropriately found the resident alternative accommodation, the next day, which was closer for the resident. While a decant is inconvenient for a resident, it was reasonable of the landlord to find alternative accommodation that was more suitable for the resident.
During the decant, the resident contacted the landlord on16 October 2023, as she was struggling to manage with the lack of cooking facilities and the cost of living out of a hotel with 2 young children. In line with the landlord’s compensation policy, it would pay the resident £15 per day, per person, where there was a loss of cooking facilities. However, following the resident’s email, the landlord agreed to also cover the cost of lunch and dinner from 23 October 2023. While this showed a commitment by the landlord to ease the strain of the situation of the resident, it is not clear why it did not offer this from the 16 October 2023, when the resident initially raised the issue. Furthermore, there is no evidence to show when the landlord communicated its change in stance to the resident. Given the clear distress that the resident was in, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have communicated its new offer at the earliest opportunity to help alleviate the distress caused to the resident.
The resident sent her claim for the allowance after returning to the property on 30 October 2023. However, she had to chase the landlord for this payment three times between 16 November 2023 and 12 December 2023. In one of her emails, she mentioned lying awake, worrying about her finances while waiting for the discretionary payments. Although the landlord has a process to follow for making payments, it would have been appropriate to expedite the payment in this case. Additionally, the landlord should have communicated any delays in making such payments to the resident. The lack of communication caused her distress and inconvenience, as she had to spend time repeatedly contacting the landlord for a response.
On the 16 October 2023, the resident raised with the landlord the impact the situation was having on her mental wellbeing, saying to the landlord that she was on the “brink of a breakdown”. The Ombudsman is unable to make a determination that the actions or omissions of the landlord had a causal impact on the resident’s mental health. However, in such circumstances, the Ombudsman would look at the actions taken by the landlord in response to such comments made by a resident and any support offered. In this case, the evidence shows that the landlord made a referral to children’s services to see if they could offer any support. This was a suitable response in the circumstances.
However, the Ombudsman would also expect to see the landlord discuss other support options available to the resident, such as referrals to third party agencies that support adults in need. The landlord has provided no evidence to show that it discussed an extra support with the resident. While it is commendable that it made referrals to children’s services, this is a service that supports children and as such they were unable to offer help to the resident. Not offering or discussing extra support to the resident showed a disregard to the feelings she had disclosed.
Throughout the complaint, the resident raised that she felt the landlord should not have let the property in the condition that it was in. The evidence shows that the landlord inspected the property in line with its voids policy, prior to the resident moving in and it had fixed minor items. However, due to the nature of the issues found, it is reasonable to say that the landlord would not have discovered many of the issues raised during a void inspection. The landlord, however, accepted in its stage 2 complaint response, that it could understand the resident’s position and said it was going to revisit its voids procedure as a result. While the Ombudsman understands that it is frustrating for residents when issues are found after moving in, the landlord is entitled to rely on its qualified staff to undertake extensive voids inspections and trust that they had identified all the issues.
In this case, the resident reported issues with the property just 3 days after she had moved in. The resident responded each time, in line with its repairs policy, and fixed the issues raised. When the blockage in the bath occurred, it attended to resolve the issue, however this kept reoccurring. The same issues occurred with the toilet. The evidence shows that the landlord escalated its response to the issue following its first attempts failing. However, the issues reoccurred many times and the resident had raw sewage surging into her property due to the leaks. After not clearing the blockage effectively, the landlord appropriately arranged for a decant for the resident. However, during the period of the decant, the resident had to, at times, chase updates from the landlord and its communication fell short of the standard expected by the Ombudsman. Furthermore, while it completed a referral to children’s services, it did not offer any other support to the resident at a time where she was struggling. It then delayed unnecessarily in paying the discretionary payments for the financial loss experienced during the decant.
However, the landlord accepted its failings in its stage 2 complaint response. The landlord said it would undertake a review of its void process and to look at its current processes. Furthermore, it apologised for the failings found. It offered compensation to the resident of £1,100 for the distress and inconvenience caused in this case and the delays experienced by the resident in completing the repairs. This amount recognised the significant impact the landlord’s maladministration had on the resident and was therefore, proportionate in the circumstances.
Therefore, after consideration of the evidence, the Ombudsman has made a finding of reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs needed in the property after she moved in.

Complaint handling

The resident raised a formal complaint on 27 September 2023. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 18 October 2023,15 working days later. This is not in line with the landlord’s complaint policy. Furthermore, there is no evidence to show that the landlord communicated its delay, in line with its policy, to the resident. Not communicating the delay to the resident delayed the resident receiving a resolution.
The resident requested escalation to stage 2 of the complaints process on 25 October 2023. As she had not had a response, she chased the landlord on 5 December 2023. It provided the stage 2 response on 7 December 2023; this was 11 days after the response was due. Again, there is no evidence to show that the landlord communicated such delays, in line with its policy, to the resident. Not provided the response or a reason for the delays to the resident caused her to spend time chasing a response. Landlords need to ensure they have effective and efficient systems in place to track complaints to ensure it gives a response within the expected timescales.
Overall, the landlord’s complaint handling was not of the standard expected by the Ombudsman. It delayed in providing a response at both stage 1 and 2 and did not communicate the reasons for any delay to the resident. Not doing so caused her to spend time chasing a response and caused a delay in receiving a resolution.
However, in its stage 2 response, the landlord acknowledged its poor handling of the complaint and the delays experienced by the resident in receiving a response. Additionally, the landlord offered the resident £150 in compensation. Taking into account the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies, this amount is consistent with what the Ombudsman would have awarded in this case.
Therefore, the compensation offered amounts to reasonable redress for the landlord’s failures in complaint handling.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlords handling of the resident’s reports of repairs required to her property after moving in.
In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Recommendations

As a finding of reasonable redress was made based on the landlord’s offer of compensation in this case, the landlord should pay the resident the £1250 it had previously offered if it has not already done so.