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

City of Westminster Council (202318036)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202318036

Westminster City Council

26 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 response to reports of water ingress.

Background

  1. The resident is a leaseholder. The landlord, a local authority, is the freeholder. The property is a flat within a building comprised of similar properties.
  2. The landlord’s repair records indicate it was aware of a leak from the rainwater pipe affecting the building in October 2022. It completed work to clear the gutters, drains and downpipes on 19 December 2022. A neighbour reported a leak affecting their property on 8 February 2023. A repair raised on 10 February 2023 indicates that contractors required permission to break the walls to trace a leak from the concealed stack pipe.
  3. An operative attended at the time. They inspected a number of properties, the balconies, cast iron downpipe, the roof, and cold-water storage tank in the roof space. They found that the clamps holding the downpipe were allowing water to leak and track along the pipe. They said this was damaging the external wall surfaces. They found that the constant flow of water was due to the water tank overflowing. This was due to an old, and faulty, ball valve which needed replacing urgently.
  4. The landlord raised works and subsequently completed the work to the ball valve on 30 May 2023. Its records indicate that its contractors initially said there was no water tank, and there were issues with access. They also sent a quote to the landlord to approve additional work. The landlord’s records show that it reported the work to the clamps as complete on 18 February 2023, however, the job notes relate to work to the ball valve.
  5. The resident pursued a formal complaint with the landlord on 29 May 2023. He set out that:
    1. There had been an ongoing leak from a water tank at the top of the building since October 2022. He first noticed the leak in December 2022 as it was causing staining and the paint outside his front door to bubble. His neighbours had reported the issue, so he believed the matter was in hand.
    2. He began to report the issue directly to the landlord in January 2023 and called at least twice a week. There were now damp patches in his hallway and the damage had worsened in recent weeks.
    3. He was concerned that contractors did not have the correct keys when attending the leak and could not access the area. On 25 May 2023, an operative switched the water off at the mains water point on the street. He said they broke the valve and left without checking if the water was on. This left him without water for 30+ hours and it did not fix the leak.
    4. He wanted the landlord to handle the matter properly and swiftly so that he and his neighbours could complete remedial works and pursue related insurance claims. He asked it to review its handling of the case and wanted compensation in line with what it had offered his neighbours (£200).
  6. In its stage 1 complaint response on 2 June 2023, the landlord found that:
    1. A neighbour reported the issue on 10 February 2023 and it attended on the same day to make safe. Its contractor incorrectly reported that there were no water tanks in the loft space which led to a misunderstanding.
    2. They passed the work back to the landlord on 13 February 2023 based on their misunderstanding. The landlord believed that the misunderstanding occurred because the water tank was in a challenging-to-access area, with entry through a loft hatch located on the roof itself.
    3. It raised a further repair request to its contractor on 14 February 2023 who then successfully identified a faulty ball valve in the water tank on the roof on 15 February 2023. They booked follow-on work for 23 February 2023 but did not complete the work as they could not locate the water isolation valve for the tank. It believed this was due to the cramped space and poor lighting in the loft.
    4. After the visit on 23 February 2023, the engineer requested a quote for the work to replace some piping alongside the work to replace the ball valve. They said that they would need to complete a block water shutdown. Following this, the repair was pending its approval. This led to a delay of 78 days before operatives reattended on 12 May 2023.
    5. On 12 May 2023, the operative could not access the area as they did not have the correct keys. They collected the correct keys and reattended on 19 May 2023, but could not locate the stopcock to shut off the water supply and complete the work. On 25 May 2023, they located 3 mains water valves on the road. On 26 May 2023, they returned to complete the work, however, a fault developed when they used the water companies’ valves. This led to the loss of water facilities for the entire building over the weekend. Its contractor reported this immediately to the water supplier who repaired the valves.
    6. Its contractors reattended on 30 May 2023 and carried out the repairs to the pipework. It said it had since completed the repairs and there should be no further leaks.
    7. It apologised for the inconvenience caused to the resident and the disruption. It said it was taking steps to prevent similar incidents in the future. It partially upheld the complaint due to the delay and inconvenience caused as a result of the required repairs. It summarised that several misunderstandings and challenges contributed to the delay and disruption in the repair process. It offered £50 compensation, comprised of £20 for its service failure, £10 for poor communication, and £20 for inconvenience.
  7. The landlord’s records indicate that it met with the resident on 8 June 2023 in relation to an ongoing leak affecting the internal and external walls. It sent him an email on 9 June 2023. It confirmed that it would complete a full investigation to determine the source of the leak and would liaise with its insurance team where needed. Its contractors would remove a panel and check the rainwater pipe for defects on 12 June 2023.
  8. The resident escalated his complaint on 9 June 2023 as he did not feel the landlord’s initial offer of £50 compensation, or it “partially” upholding the complaint was consistent. He said it had offered his neighbours £200 through their complaint about the same issues.
  9. On 13 June 2023, the landlord’s records indicate that it identified work needed to the rainwater pipe. It asked to raise a job to replace cast iron joists and the downpipe to a balcony and complete a water test. The resident chased an update on 18 June 2023. He said that he was in communication with the building insurer. The landlord confirmed that it would be seeking a progress report from its contractors.
  10. In its stage 2 complaint response on 7 July 2023, the landlord:
    1. Recognised that its stage 1 response only listed repairs from February 2023 onwards and apologised. It said a neighbour reported the issue on 19 October 2022. It subsequently completed a temporary repair, and further work to clear the guttering between 21 November and 19 December 2022.
    2. Said it should have upheld the complaint as there were delays from February 2023. It did not complete the work until May 2023 due to pending approval and errors in following up with the repairs after the inspection on 23 February 2023.
    3. Explained that it offered compensation on a case-by-case basis. It recognised that there were delays and disruptions in the repairs process which it did not fully consider. It increased its offer of compensation to £220, comprised of the £50 at stage 1, £100 for the inconvenience caused by the delays and needing to escalate the complaint, and £70 in recognition of the delays in completing work between February and May 2023.

Events following the complaint

  1. The resident referred his complaint to us in August 2023 as he remained dissatisfied with the delay in resolving the issues, which were ongoing. He detailed that the leak was coming through the rainwater pipe which the landlord had not rectified. He said that the water tank had overflowed into this pipe which intensified the situation. He said there were large areas of damp in his property and the flooring had begun to warp.
  2. The landlord’s records indicate that it raised a work order for the repairs identified in June 2023 (to expose the rainwater pipe) on 5 September 2023. Its repair records indicate that it exposed the pipework prior to 16 November 2023 and practically completed the work on 23 January 2024. Following this, the landlord and resident communicated about outstanding work to resurface the balcony above. In February 2024, the resident asked the landlord to provide parking permits to allow his contractors to complete remedial work to the property. The landlord agreed to provide 23 days of parking.
  3. In his communication with us, the resident said that he has not experienced further water ingress. He said that contractors made various holes in the external walls to allow works which it had not yet repaired. He added that the landlord said it intended to move pipework from the inside of the walls to the outside, but he had heard nothing further. He was unhappy with the landlord’s offer of compensation, noting that the delays caused increased damage over time, and he needed to move from the property for several months to allow his contractors to repair the damage because of the leaks.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. In his communication to us and his local councillor, the resident mentioned the impact of the damp conditions on his health. We do not doubt the resident’s comments, but it is beyond our remit to determine the cause, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This is more appropriate to be dealt with through the courts as a personal injury claim. Nonetheless, we have considered the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident.
  2. We note that the resident pursued an insurance claim for the damage to his property and to cover the cost of alternative accommodation while completing remedial works in early 2024. We cannot comment on the outcome of the insurance claim but will consider whether the landlord’s offer of compensation is proportionate given the inconvenience caused to the resident.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of water ingress

  1. The landlord’s leaseholder handbook confirms that the landlord is responsible for repairs to communal water tanks, main water pipes, soil stack pipes, and gutters. The landlord’s website sets out its expected response timeframes for repairs. It would attend immediate repairs within 24 hours to make safe. It attends urgent repairs within 1 to 7 days. It has a timescale of 28 working days for non-urgent (routine) repairs.
  2. The landlord has recognised that there were delays in completing work to resolve water ingress affecting the building, specifically to repair a defective ball valve in the water tank in the loft space. It has acknowledged that the delays were due to its contractors incorrectly stating that there was no water tank, and an extensive delay in it approving and arranging the work between February 2023 and May 2023. There were further delays due to access issues involving its contractors having incorrect keys and not being able to locate the stop cock for the water supply. This also resulted in external valves becoming damaged, meaning that the water company needed to complete a repair, and residents left without water over a weekend following 26 May 2023.
  3. The resident remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of the situation and lack of oversight. He pursued an insurance claim via the landlord’s building insurer which covered costs associated with the damage to his property and the need for temporary accommodation for 2 to 3 months to allow remedial work to take place. However, he does not feel that the landlord’s offer of compensation is proportionate to the level of inconvenience caused because of its failures to address the issues.
  4. As part of this investigation, we asked the landlord to provide records relevant to the complaint and the resident’s reports. While the landlord provided its repair records, these contained undated notes making it difficult to establish dates of attendance. In addition, while we have seen some communication records detailing the resident’s communication to the landlord, these are mostly for the period following the complaint in May 2023.
  5. It is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail. If we investigate a complaint, we will ask for the landlord’s records. 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. We have been able to reach a determination based on the information to hand. However, the omissions may indicate poor record keeping in that it was not able to provide the relevant information when asked.
  6. We note that neighbours initially reported the leak to the landlord on 19 October 2022. The landlord took steps to quote and complete work to clear the gutters drains, flat roof and downpipe on 19 December 2022. The landlord has said that it did not find any service failure in how it handled these works.
  7. It can take more than one attempt to resolve issues such as leaks as it can be difficult to identify the cause at the outset and different repairs may need to be attempted before the matter is resolved. This would not necessarily constitute a service failure by the landlord. However, we find that the landlord missed the opportunity to investigate the neighbour’s concerns adequately at the time, which led to delays and the resident’s subsequent complaint.
  8. The repair and job note on 19 October 2022 refer to the neighbour’s concern that there could be an “overflow from the water tank in the roof”. The job notes also refer to their reports of a “continuous flow” of water down the rainwater pipe, and water from the “first-floor balcony” onto the basement stairs. While the landlord raised work to clear the gutters and downpipe, which may have been reasonable as an initial step, it has not demonstrated that it adequately investigated the specific concerns at the time or listened to its residents. It did not investigate these specific concerns until February 2023, 4 months later.
  9. We note that the resident said he began to report the issue himself in January 2023. We have not seen evidence of his reports specifically and cannot determine the extent of time and trouble he spent pursuing his concerns prior to the complaint. It is evident that the landlord had the opportunity to consider his neighbour’s suggestions about what was causing the problem and take steps to resolve the matter sooner.
  10. Following reports of an ongoing leak in February 2023, the landlord has not disputed that there were extensive delays in repairing the ball valve. It attributed this to difficulty accessing the area, and errors in following up on the repairs. The landlord apologised for the inconvenience caused by the delay and connected water outage. It said it was taking steps to prevent similar failings in future. It said that the delays were the result of “misunderstandings and challenges” and briefly acknowledged poor communication. However, it did not set out the steps it would take to improve its service moving forward or demonstrate that it had learnt from the complaint.
  11. In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord said that it completed the work on 30 May 2023 and there should be no further leaks from the area. However, it failed to recognise that this was not the only identified cause of the leak at the time. On 10 February 2023, it initially identified that the seals to 3 “clamps” holding various parts of the downpipe in place were allowing water to “constantly” leak out and run down the pipework. The job notes state that this was also causing damage to external wall surfaces and there was a constant flow due to the overflowing water tank.
  12. The landlord raised a work order on 10 February 2023 to replace 3 worn clamps on the downpipe. Its records note that it “practically completed” this work on 18 February 2023. However, the job notes refer to access issues and to the overflow from the water tank. There is no reference to the pipework. We have not seen clear evidence to confirm that it completed work to the “clamps” at the time.
  13. Following its stage 1 complaint response on 2 June 2023, the resident continued to report the leak. The landlord was evidently aware that the water ingress was ongoing and impacting both the internal and external walls of the building from 8 June 2023. On 13 June 2023, it identified that it needed to complete work to remake 3 cast iron “joints” and to resolve a leak to the downpipe on a balcony above that was “affecting properties below”. It also identified a possible defect to the balcony surface. We note that it was initially aware of the leak from the balcony in October 2022, 7 months earlier.
  14. It is of concern that despite 3 “clamps” on the downpipe being found to be the cause of water escape in February 2023, and the landlord raising work, 3 “joists” were found to be the cause of ongoing issues approximately 4 months later. This indicates that it either did not complete the work at the time, as suggested above, or that the ongoing issue was the result of poor diagnosis and workmanship. Nonetheless, the landlord had the opportunity to identify and resolve the issues related to the downpipe at an earlier stage.
  15. The landlord had the opportunity to address the ongoing issues at the time of its stage 2 complaint response on 7 July 2023 but failed to do so. It is evident that the resident wanted it to resolve the water ingress issues as a resolution to his complaint. However, the landlord failed to engage with the substantive issue. At the time of its stage 2 complaint response, it had been aware of the ongoing water ingress, and repairs needed, for approximately 1 month. It had the opportunity to recognise that it had not raised the additional works (from 13 June 2023) at this stage and avoid additional delays in resolving the leak.
  16. The landlord failed to use its complaints process to make any comment on the outstanding issues or set out how it intended to put things right or monitor works. This was likely to cause frustration and inconvenience to the resident as the matter was unresolved.
  17. In addition, the resident had raised concerns about the worsening damage to his property. The landlord did not comment on this at any stage of its complaints process despite being aware of the resident’s concern that the ongoing leaks were preventing him, and other residents, from conducting remedial works and pursuing insurance claims. The landlord was aware that the resident was pursuing an insurance claim for the damage to the property. While an insurance claim is the right route to pursue compensation for damage to property or possessions, it could have done more to acknowledge the impact of its delays.
  18. Within its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord offered £220 to recognise its service failure, poor communication, the inconvenience caused by the delays and its failure to account for the period between October 2022 and February 2023 in its initial response.
  19. The landlord’s compensation policy indicates that it would offer up to £250 compensation in cases where its service failures had an impact on a resident, but where this was of a low impact, short duration, and caused minimal, low inconvenience and distress. This includes where it failed to meet service standards for action, but where the failure had no significant impact.
  20. Overall, the landlord’s offer of £220 compensation at the time of its final response on 7 July 2023 was disproportionately low in view of the impact of its failings on the resident by that point. Considering the circumstances, and with reference to our remedies guidance (available on our website), we have ordered an increased award of compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused. This is to recognise the adverse impact of this situation and the additional failings that the landlord did not acknowledge.
  21. In view of the landlord’s failure to fully address the ongoing leaks at the time of its stage 2 complaint response, we have considered subsequent events to establish whether the landlord has put things right and learned from outcomes in accordance with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles.
  22. As above, the landlord has not demonstrated that it took adequate points of learning from the resident’s complaint. We have seen examples of poor communication with the resident following the complaint. Specifically, the resident needed to continue to chase the landlord for updates in June, August, September and October 2023, necessitating an unreasonable level of involvement. Given the ongoing nature of the issue impacting various properties, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have proactively provided updates to all residents on the steps it was taking to resolve the leak.
  23. In addition, we have seen evidence of continued failures to monitor work and similar errors in following up with the repairs. The landlord outlined the work needed to the downpipe and the need to consider a defect to the balcony surface on 13 June 2023. Its internal records indicate that it asked internally to raise the work on 17 August 2023 as well as works to expose the rainwater pipe and carry out any necessary repairs. We have not seen evidence to show that it raised a work order for all of these until 5 September 2023, almost 3 months after the initial inspection.
  24. The resident needed to chase works, which prompted the landlord to engage with its contractors on 5 October 2023. They then provided quotes for the work which it approved on 9 October 2023. It is of concern that it did not effectively pursue this for around a month after raising the work. The landlord’s job notes suggest that contractors needed to reinspect due to the time that had passed. They then exposed the pipework around 14 November 2023 and completed work on 23 November 2023. Following this, there were ongoing discussions regarding the balcony into 2024.
  25. We have found maladministration by the landlord in its response to reports of water ingress. There were similar failings in the landlord’s handling of the repairs following the initial complaint which led to additional delays and inconvenience to the resident. The landlord failed to demonstrate that it took adequate learning from the resident’s complaint which contributed to the further delays in resolving the water ingress, and in the resident being able to resolve the damage caused to his property. 

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its response to reports of water ingress.

Orders

  1. We order the landlord to complete the following actions within 4 weeks:
    1. Write to the resident to apologise for the failings identified in this report.
    2. Pay the resident £700 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused, and time and trouble spent because of the failings identified. This includes its previous compensation offer of £220.
    3. Contact the resident to discuss his concerns about remedial work to fill holes left in the building, and the relocation of pipework. It should provide a written response within 4 weeks. If the resident remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s response, he may wish to raise a separate complaint about its handling of these issues.
  2. Within 12 weeks, the landlord is to complete a case review with a focus on establishing points of learning to improve its service and inform its approach to leaks affecting multiple properties in the future. It should, at a minimum, consider its communication with residents affected by an ongoing leak, and its contractor management.
  3. The landlord is to provide evidence of compliance within the specified timescales.

Recommendations

  1. We recommend that the landlord considers whether other residents in the building were impacted by similar failings and whether it will provide additional redress to these residents.