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

City of Westminster Council (202418222)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202418222

Westminster City Council

21 March 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 the resident’s:
    1. Reports of damp and mould due to ventilation issues.
    2. Request for a move on medical grounds.
    3. Associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the property, a 2-bed flat in a high-rise block owned by the landlord. He lives with his wife and 3 children. The family has a number of disabilities, and his youngest child has a diagnosed mould allergy.
  2. The resident has been requesting a medical move from the landlord since as early as 2019. He began to report problems with his extractor fans and the communal ventilation system in April 2021. On 28 September 2021, it requested a CCTV survey of the ventilation system to find the problem.
  3. On 17 March 2023, the resident complained to the landlord via his MP. The complaint was about its refusal of a managed move on medical grounds and the longstanding damp and mould in the property affecting the health of his child. He made another direct complaint on 26 March 2024 about both issues.
  4. The landlord responded at stage 1 of its complaints process on 6 June 2024. It admitted that while it had completed damp and mould washes in the resident’s home, it had not handled the root cause of the issue effectively and apologised for this. It said it had cleaned the ventilation system in his home on 5 June 2024 and would propose installing sensors to measure the air quality. It offered compensation of £270.
  5. On 3 July 2024, the resident requested escalation of his complaint as he reported ongoing problems with damp and mould. He quoted the Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018 and asked that it repair the source of the damp and mould.
  6. In its stage 2 complaint response of 5 August 2024, the landlord apologised for missing an appointment on 5 June 2024. It said it completed a full clean of the communal ventilation system and fitted sensors in the resident’s home in July 2024. It offered a further £75 compensation for failing to properly follow up works and a delayed stage 2 response, bringing its total offer across both responses to £345.
  7. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s approach to the damp and mould in his home and brought his complaint to this Service for investigation.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

  1. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). When a resident brings a complaint to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why we will not investigate a complaint.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 42.j. of the Scheme, the following aspect of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:
    1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for it to move his family on medical grounds.
  3. Paragraph 42.j. of the Scheme says that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which “fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint-handling body.”
  4. In this case, the resident would need to approach the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) for advice in relation to housing allocations and medical moves.

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has told the landlord and the Ombudsman that the damp and mould has impacted the health of his family. The courts are the most effective place for disputes about personal injury and illness. This is largely because independent medical experts are appointed to give evidence. They have a duty to the court to provide unbiased insights on the diagnosis, prognosis, and cause of any illness or injury. When disputes arise over the cause of an injury, oral testimony can be examined in court. Therefore, this element to the resident’s complaint is better dealt with via the court.

Damp and mould

  1. The resident reported issues with the communal ventilation system and internal extractor fans to the landlord on 27 April 2021. He said this was causing mould. It installed new extractor fans on 25 May 2021. However, it did not raise works for a CCTV survey of the ventilation system until 28 September 2021.
  2. The landlord’s repairs policy and tenant’s handbook outline its repair response times. It will attend and complete non-urgent (or routine) repairs within 28 working days. This includes work that may require “substantial” repairs.
  3. The landlord completed a test of the ventilation system on 5 October 2021 and found it was working. However, the resident continued to report problems with the ventilation system. It scheduled a further appointment for 5 November 2021 but there is no evidence this took place until 14 December 2021.
  4. On 14 December 2021, the landlord completed a CCTV inspection of the communal ventilation system from the resident’s flat. It found a partial blockage of the pipework and that there was no airflow from his flat. From the roof, it found dirt clogging the ductwork. It said it needed to inspect further. It approved a quote for further works on 12 January 2022. While it had already exceeded its policy timescale at this stage, it was working to fix the issue.
  5. However, the landlord made no further efforts to rectify the problem until it raised works on 8 June 2022. It later noted in late July 2022 that it needed to send the blueprint of the vent to a specialist contractor. It said twice in the following weeks that it was waiting for confirmation from the contractor. It has not provided evidence to show that it tried to chase them for an update. This would have been good practice as there was an identified issue it needed to fix.
  6. The landlord completed mould washes in the resident’s flat on 3 November and 2 December 2022. However, on 29 November 2022 its contractor said that it was not possible to clean the ventilation ductwork without drawings of the building, which it could not provide. The resident continued to request a move on medical grounds, noting that his son had been hospitalised as a direct result of the mould. There is no evidence that it took any further action relating to this ahead of receiving his complaint on 17 March 2023.
  7. As part of this complaint, the resident told the landlord that his son had a mould allergy. This had led to him regularly visiting hospital with respiratory problems. It did not formally respond to this complaint but did raise works again for a full clean of the communal ventilation system on 4 April 2023, over a year since it found that it needed to do this.
  8. The resident chased the landlord about ventilation works on 3 May 2023. It completed another mould wash on 10 May 2023 and asked that ventilation works were actioned as soon as possible due to the resident’s frustration at the time taken. His MP sent it a copy of medical paperwork confirming his son’s mould allergy on 23 June 2023. However, it took no action to improve the condition of the property after this.
  9. There were no further direct reports of damp and mould after this until March 2024. However, the resident’s MP had chased the landlord for an update about rehousing due to property condition in October 2023. It completed an inspection of the property on 8 March 2024 and found “minor” mould. It completed a mould wash on 22 March 2024 and renewed the sealant around bathroom fittings.
  10. The resident complained to the landlord on 26 March 2024 as it had not fixed the ventilation problem, and said its repairs team told him they had no history of earlier repair refence numbers. He said he was having to clean the mould himself. After this, on 23 April 2024, it booked a ventilation survey for 25 April 2024. However, it had already found that it needed to clean the ventilation system in 2021 and had failed to do so.
  11. An independent surveyor inspected the property on 22 May 2024 as part of the Pre-Action Protocol for Housing Disrepair Claims. They found the bathroom extractor fan was barely working and had an inadequate flow rate. They said this was leading to humidity and water vapour in the bathroom which was affecting the adjoining bedrooms. They said the property needed a whole house PIV extraction system to help ventilate the upper levels. They noted mould growth throughout the upper levels of the property.
  12. The findings of this report contradicted the landlord’s own survey of 25 April 2024, in which it said the central ventilation system in the bathroom was functional. It is unclear whether this was due to the month between the surveys.
  13. In its stage 1 response of 6 June 2024, the landlord apologised for the mould issues the resident was experiencing and acknowledged the significant delays in fixing the communal ventilation system. It said it was likely this delay contributed towards the increased damp and mould in the property. It said it had not effectively managed the root cause of the issue and apologised for its service falling below expected standards.
  14. In its response, the landlord confirmed that it would be cleaning the vents in the resident’s property, along with the communal pipework and replacing the main roof fans to increase air flow. It proposed installation of sensors in his property to monitor the air quality. It offered compensation of £270, of which £250 was for the repairs. This is broken down as follows:
    1. £100 for repair delays.
    2. £100 for distress and inconvenience.
    3. £50 for its lack of communication.
  15. The landlord’s compensation policy categorises payment amounts by the severity of impact on a resident. In this case, the compensation offered was in line with its medium impact awards. These are for service failures which have caused a resident a moderate degree of distress of inconvenience with no permanent impact. Despite its positive update on the outstanding works, the compensation offered did not adequately consider that the issue had been ongoing for over 2 years, or the reported effect on his son’s health.
  16. In the resident’s escalation request, he said the landlord’s contractor attended as arranged on 5 June 2024 but could not complete works as it was “too big of a job.” He reported the damp and mould was worsening and he was having to clean the mould every 2 weeks which was difficult for him due to his disabilities. He said this was still affecting his children’s health. He asked that it immediately repair the ventilation system to stop the damp and mould.
  17. In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord acknowledged that it had failed to fix the issue as planned on 5 June 2024. It said it cleaned the communal ventilation system on 22 July 2024 and fitted sensors in the resident’s property on 7 July 2024. It said it had found it was not possible to move the PIV unit to the upstairs area of the flat but that it was working. It offered an additional £50 compensation for the failure to properly complete works proposed at stage 1.
  18. Again, the compensation offered by the landlord did not adequately address the delays in completing works or the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. It apologised for a missed appointment but did not apologise for the overall poor handling of repairs.
  19. Throughout this case and the resident’s requests for a managed move he continued to mention the problems the conditions of the property were causing his family. The landlord often ignored the mention of property condition and focused on his request for a move. It was aware that it needed to clean the ventilation system in late 2021 and did not do this effectively until 18 August 2024, after its stage 2 complaint response.
  20. In the contractor’s report from this clean, they noted that the pipework showed signs that the landlord had not cleaned it for a significant period and recommended that it inspect this annually going forward. They also recorded an issue directly affecting the resident’s flat, suspecting a blockage in a property above. They noted that they needed access to 3 specific flats to find this. There is no evidence to show that it has completed these works.
  21. During a telephone call with the resident on 12 March 2025, he told us that the landlord has not checked the function of the ventilation system in his property since it completed the communal clean. He reported that it had sent a surveyor earlier this year, 2025, who confirmed that the ventilation does not work properly but that he had heard nothing since and is unclear about what the landlord intends to fix.
  22. Overall, the landlord’s response was poor. It did not account for the vulnerabilities of the household and the resident often had to chase it directly or through his MP. Its offer of compensation was not adequate, and it did not appropriately apologise for its failings. We will make an order for further financial redress in the orders and recommendations section of this report, along with an order to inspect the ventilation system within the resident’s property.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord has a 2–stage complaints policy. It will acknowledge complaints within 2 working days. At stage 1, it aims to respond within 10 working days. At stage 2, it aims to respond within 20 working days. At both stages, it will advise a resident if it needs longer to investigate.
  2. Our Complaint Handling Code at the time of this complaint (2022), said a landlord must handle a complaint sent via a third party in line with its complaints policy.
  3. The resident’s MP sent his first complaint to the landlord on 17 March 2023. The MP clearly asked that the landlord took the point about slow and ineffective repairs to damp and mould as a complaint. It did not acknowledge this or provide any complaint response to the resident, or his MP.
  4. The resident sent another complaint to the landlord on 26 March 2024. It has provided no evidence to show that it acknowledged this in line with its policy, or that it requested an extension of the response time ahead of sending its stage 1 response on 6 June 2024. This was 48 working days after it received his complaint and far exceeded the policy timescale.
  5. The landlord’s compensation policy allows for payments from £20 for complaint handling failures. As part of it stage 1 response, it offered the resident £20 compensation for this delay. It did apologise for its late response and for not keeping him updated on the progress of his complaint. However, offering the minimum amount of compensation was not appropriate in the circumstances of the overall case.
  6. There was a delay of 3 working days in the provision of the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response and it offered £25 compensation and an apology for this. This compensation amount was higher than its stage 1 offer for a significantly longer delay and it offered no explanation for this.
  7. Overall, there were clear and obvious delays in the landlord’s complaint handling, along with a failure to respond to the resident’s complaint in March 2023. Its offer of compensation was not reasonable, and we will make a further order for financial redress.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould due to poor ventilation.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaint.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 42.j. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the complaint about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a move on medical grounds is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 28 days of this report, the landlord must:
    1. Pay the resident compensation of £1,245, comprising:
      1. £300 originally offered across its stage 1 and 2 complaint responses for repair delays.
      2. An added £350 for the delays in repairing the communal ventilation system.
      3. An added £350 for distress and inconvenience.
      4. £45 originally offered across its stage 1 and 2 complaint responses for its complaint handling failures.
      5. An added £150 for its failure to respond to the resident’s complaint in March 2023.
      6. An added £50 for the delays in providing its stage 1 complaint response.
    2. Send the resident a written apology from a senior manager for the failures identified in this report.
    3. Provide evidence to this Service of compliance with these orders.
  2. Within 8 weeks of this report, the landlord must:
    1. Inspect the ventilation systems within the resident’s property and confirm whether any additional works are required. If works are needed, it must provide a schedule of works to the resident and the Ombudsman.
    2. Confirm with the resident if any works are still outstanding to the communal ventilation system.
    3. Complete a damp and mould survey of the resident’s property and identify whether any works are required. If works are needed, it must provide a schedule of works to the resident and the Ombudsman.
    4. Provide evidence to this Service of compliance with these orders.

Recommendations

  1. We recommend that the landlord contact the resident to provide advice and support in relation to his rehousing request and his options going forward.