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

City of Westminster Council (202301766)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202301766

Westminster City Council

5 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. This complaint is about the landlord’s response to:
    1. The resident’s request to be rehoused.
    2. The resident’s reports about repairs, damage to personal belongings, and household vulnerabilities.
  2. The landlord’s complaint handling.  

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 complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.

The resident’s request to be rehoused.

  1. Paragraph 42.j. of the Scheme states the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint handling body.
  2. The landlord’s correspondence with the resident in late 2024 shows that she made a rehousing application in January 2024 based on medical needs for herself and her family. The landlord assessed her application and told her she had not met the criteria for medical priority. It later said she had been told at the time of her right to request a review of the decision, but had not done so within the review deadline.
  3. The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) can review complaints about applications for rehousing that fall under Part 6 of the Housing Act (1996), This includes complaints concerning applications for rehousing that meet the reasonable preference criteria (such as for medical reasons) and the assessment of such applications. Because of that the resident’s rehousing concerns are more appropriately considered by the LGSCO, and not the Housing Ombudsman.
  4. The resident had previously complained to the landlord about her home, saying it should move her for health reasons and what she described as the unsuitability of her home. It is not apparent if she has specifically made a rehousing application prior to 2024, or if she has made a formal complaint to the landlord about any decision it has made about a rehousing application. Because of that uncertainty the resident is recommended to contact the LGSCO to discuss her concerns and take advice.

Background

  1. The resident has been a secure tenant of the landlord since 2015. The property is a 2-bedroom flat on the fifth floor. The resident and members of the household have a number of health conditions.
  2. The resident complained to the landlord in December 2020 about delays with her application to alter her kitchen, and a leak in the kitchen she had reported in September 2020. The landlord provided a stage 1 response on 16 December 2020.
  3. In April 2021 the resident contacted the landlord about issues with electrics in her kitchen. The landlord completed an electrical test on 7 May 2021 which identified the electrics had been altered during the kitchen alterations. On 5 November 2021 a leak occurred in the property from a heating pipe. The landlord raised works to remove floor tiles within the living room and bedroom and replace the pipework. The resident raised a letter of claim through a solicitor about a leak from the heating system, damp, and damage to the floor. A condition survey was completed by the landlord on 20 January 2022 which stated the leak had been stopped and remedial works were underway for the affected area. Between January 2021 and June 2022, the resident’s solicitor at the time corresponded with the landlord’s legal team about the remedial works. On 12 May 2022, the resident escalated her complaint from December 2020.
  4. The resident raised a further letter of claim to the landlord on 16 January 2023.. This included issues with damp and mould, flooring, asbestos, heating, and silverfish. The landlord rejected the claim.
  5. The resident raised a new complaint to the landlord on 26 September 2023 about communications and missed appointments. She also re–raised her escalation request of her complaint from December 2020. On 10 October 2023, the resident raised further complaints about missing reports, health assessments from 2015, lack of contact about a visit from her housing officer, and repairs.
  6. On 16 October 2023, the resident raised a new complaint to the landlord. She said she required immediate rehousing. This complaint involved multiple issues from 2020 until the present, and repeated many of the previous complaints over that period. Most centred on the condition and suitability of the property, and the impact of living in it.
  7. The landlord issued a stage 1 complaint response on 4 January 2024. It said it was unable to investigate issues over 12 months old. It responded to the resident’s request for rehousing on medical grounds. It said it would consider any claims for items the resident complained had been damaged by the property’s condition, asked for further evidence of this and provided details of its insurance process. The landlord accepted it had failed to acknowledge the information and medical reports the resident submitted in December 2021. It explained it would respond to the complaints about the property’s current condition by 25 January 2024 after it had inspected the it.
  8. The landlord issued a further stage 1 response on 25 January 2024. It said it had completed an inspection on 12 January 2024 by both a surveyor and an aids and adaptations surveyor. The inspection identified repairs, which it had scheduled for 7 February 2024. This included flooring in the living room, moving of stopcock, skim and decorate the walls and ceiling in a bedroom, and replace tiles behind the bath. It said the proposed repairs to the property should resolve the silverfish. It apologsied for the delays in its complaint handling, its handling of the medical evidence, and its communication. It offered the resident £650 compensation.
  9. The landlord also told the resident that due to elements of the complaint remaining outstanding it was escalating her complaint to stage 2. The resident confirmed in an email on the same day that she was escalating her complaint. The resident was dissatisfied with each point of the landlord’s response. She said it did not address all points in her initial complaint including asbestos exposure, the impact of flooding, electrical hazards, the need for urgent rehousing, mould eradication and prevention, and the mishandling of furniture removal. The resident said she wanted full compensation for damage to items, loss of time and wellbeing. 
  10. The landlord provided its final response on 15 March 2024. It addressed the issues the resident had raised separately and in detail. It upheld the complaint because there had been a delay registering the resident’s vulnerabilities, communication should have been better managed and there was a delay in responding to the initial complaint. It offered total compensation of £1400, and reimbursement for heating costs of £1236.
  11.   The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response. She said the response did not fully address the most significant issue of the asbestos, damp, electricity issues and her need for rehousing since 2021.

Assessment and findings

Investigation scope  

  1. The resident has told us that her complaint includes the landlord’s actions since she started her tenancy in 2014. While the historical issues provided contextual background to the current complaint, this investigation centres on the events leading up to the landlord’s complaint responses in 2024. This is because paragraph 42.c. of the Housing Ombudsman explains residents should raise complaints with their landlords normally within 12 months of the matters arising. This is so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues whilst they are still ‘live’, and while the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events that occurred.
  2. The resident has also complained to the Ombudsman about new issues which arose after the end of the complaints process. These included rent increases, landlord visits to the property, and further requests for rehousing.  As explained above, this investigation centres on the issues raised during the resident’s formal complaint on 16 October 2023 and responded to by the landlord in its final response on 15 March 2024.
  3. Any concerns the resident has about the landlord’s actions after that period need to be raised as new complaints with the landlord, so it has the opportunity to investigate and respond to them. If the resident remains dissatisfied after the landlord has addressed her new complaints she has the option of returning to the Ombudsman.
  4. The resident has explained that the landlord sent her a complaint response intended for a different person, and she has concerns about how it handles personal data. Complaints concerning data protection fall properly within the jurisdiction of the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). If the resident remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of this issue, she may wish to contact the ICO.
  5. In her complaint to the Ombudsman, the resident has explained how her circumstances and the issues of her complaint have impacted on her and her family’s health, and is seeking compensation for the harm she says has been caused by the landlord. The Ombudsman is unable to assess the cause of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. The resident may be able to make a personal injury claim if she considers that her health has been affected by the landlord’s actions or inaction. This is a legal process, and the resident may wish to seek legal advice if she wants to pursue this option. In accordance with paragraph 42.f. of the Scheme, health concerns are more effectively resolved and remedied through the courts. They will not be considered in this investigation.
  6. Parts of the resident’s complaint involve her dissatisfaction with the occupational therapy (OT) services she has received. Where a landlord is a local authority, the Ombudsman can only assess its actions in relation to its housing activities so far as they relate to the provision or management of social housing. Our remit does not extend to considering the actions of other local authority departments or functions. As such, we have not assessed the actions of the local authority’s OT, but they will be referred to within the report, for context. The LGSCO may be able to assist with any OT concerns the resident has.

The resident’s reports about repairs, damage to personal belongings, and household vulnerabilities.

  1. The landlord’s tenant handbook says the landlord will keep in good working order the services and equipment that supply electricity, heating and water. Residents are responsible for minor repairs and maintenance including the maintenance and repair or any additional fittings they have provided. If the landlord carries out repairs that are the resident’s responsibility, it will recharge the cost to the resident.
  2. The handbook says a resident must contact the landlord if they want to carry out any alterations or improvements. Items must be replaced to current safety standards.
  3. The landlord’s target timescales for immediate repairs, is 24 hours. Urgent repairs are attended to and work completed within 3 working days. Non–urgent repairs are attended to within 28 working days.
  4. The landlord’s compensation policy explains it will not compensate for damaged belongings in a tenant’s home. Instead, tenants should be advised of the correct insurance route. It says resident’s who have experienced increased electrical costs and given temporary dehumidifiers will be offered compensation to cover these costs. This is £2.50 per dehumidifier per number of days.
  5. In response to the resident’s concerns in her complaint about repairs from a leak in November 2021, the landlord explained the delays had resulted from the resident refusing access and then requiring assistance with moving furniture to allow the repairs. The landlord’s records confirm its explanation.
  6. The landlord’s records and the resident’s evidence also show the resident had removed wooden flooring on 5 December 2021. The landlord’s final response and records from the time confirmed that this had delayed the completion time of the works. The works to the flooring and repair of the heating pipe are marked as completed on the landlord records in January 2022. The landlord raised further repairs on 9 February 2022, which were marked as completed on 10 March 2022 to skirting boards and hacking off and making good the water damaged areas.
  7. While the work took longer than the timescales in the landlord’s repair policy, repairs from water damage can take further time to complete than a standard repair, given the need for the affected areas to dry out. This is confirmed here by the use of dehumidifiers for a period of time. The landlord’s records confirmed the works were completed on 10 March 2022.
  8. In an email to the landlord on 7 December 2021, the resident said mould in the property was causing her breathing difficulty. She told the landlord she had asthma and health conditions and provided details about her family’s medical conditions. The landlord’s internal emails, and an email from the resident’s solicitor show that the landlord had offered the resident temporary accommodation. This demonstrated the landlord taking the resident’s health needs into consideration. The landlord engaged with the resident’s solicitor at the time about reimbursement of hotel costs following the resident saying she was staying at a hotel due to her health. The landlord also provided temporary accommodation and furniture removal storage to allow for the works in February 2022. These were appropriate actions given the extent of the work and the resident’s reports of the impact to her health.
  9. It is not apparent when the recurrence of damp to the walls in the bedroom as identified in the inspection on 12 January 2024 occurred. The resident raised a letter of claim in January 2023 about damp and mould, asbestos, and electrical issues. This was rejected outright by the landlord. It is not clear if the resident reported damp and mould with the landlord after this date, until her complaint in October 2023
  10. A surveyor report on 29 March 2022 noted the landlord had completed the remedial works, the removal of all cracked and damaged asbestos, replastering, redecoration, and the relaying of laminate flooring. It is noted that a report from a surveyor in January 2022 as part of a disrepair claim recommended calcium carbide testing to a shared internal wall. However, the landlord provided the resident with a response to this through her solicitor at the time on 1 February 2022. It stated that this was not required in this situation as the leak had been from a heating pipe and not rising damp. As such the landlord had not considered this to be an outstanding issue.
  11. The landlord’s action to inspect the property in November 2023 and 12 January 2024 following the resident’s complaint in October 2023 was appropriate. A mould wash was raised on 10 December 2023 following the inspection in November (although, it is not clear if this was arranged with the resident). The landlord confirmed in its final response that works had been booked to be completed on 7 February 2024. That was an appropriate timescale given the landlord had undertaken 2 inspections in the interim to fully identify the works needed.
  12. The resident raised concerns in her complaint about asbestos in the property. The work raised on 5 November 2021 for a partial removal of the floor tiles by the asbestos team was noted as completed on 6 January 2022. There was no evidence of asbestos being noted as a concern in the inspection on 12 January 2024. The landlord confirmed in its final response that all necessary precautions were taken and that appropriate procedures were followed during the removal process. This aligns with the landlord’s repair records from the time. The landlord acknowledged a misunderstanding about the work being carried out in December 2024 in its complaint response and apologised for this. As such the landlord’s response was reasonable.
  13. It is evident from the landlord’s records that electrical repairs to the kitchen had been outstanding since April 2021. The landlord appropriately arranged for an inspection of the electrics in the kitchen on 07 May 2021 following the resident’s report. Further inspections and tests by the landlord, and an independent report on behalf of the resident in October 2023 concluded that the electrics had been altered during the resident’s kitchen renovations which had caused the issues. The resident disputed this, saying she had not altered the electrics and the problem was pre-existing. However, the previous Electrical Installation Condition Reports (EICR) for the property prior to the kitchen works in 2018 was satisfactory. Therefore, it was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the outcome of its investigations.
  14. The letter providing the approval for the kitchen works issued on 14 January 2021 states the resident was solely responsible for any damage caused by the works. It stated all electrical work must be carried out by a qualified electrician and comply in every respect with current regulations. It said failure to comply with the conditions would result in the resident being charged the full cost of any reinstatement or additional work. Therefore, the options provided to the resident in the landlord’s final response were in line with the terms of this approval. The landlord’s records show it consistently provided the resident with this information and a request for the electric certification since July 2021.
  15. In her complaint the resident stated that surveys and reports had said the property was uninhabitable. The Service has not seen any evidence from the number of surveyor inspections conducted between 2021 and January 2024 stating the property was uninhabitable. The evidence shows the resident feels the property is uninhabitable for her family and has been caused distress by this. However, the landlord’s response was in line with the results of surveys carried out.
  16. The landlord’s records showed an inspection of the water damage raised on 3 December 2021 was cancelled due to a disrepair case being raised by the resident about the matter. Although it is noted the works to repair the leak at the property continued during this time. The landlord’s records show an inspection was raised on 10 May 2022 in response to the residents reports about silverfish. It was not clear from the record when this was cancelled. The landlord’s records showed it was engaging with the resident’s solicitor during this time. The landlord acknowledged its lack of communication about the inspections. It also offered the resident compensation for the poor communication overall, which was appropriate.
  17. In its final response, the landlord stated that it did not have a record of reports about water damaged mattresses. This was incorrect as this issue had been discussed by the landlord’s legal team and the resident’s solicitor at the time in March 2022 in which the landlord stated it did not accept liability for any damage. The resident also told the landlord in an email in December 2021 the mattresses were damaged. She said damage had also occurred to furniture and belongings. It was appropriate for the landlord to refer her to its insurance about this matter and the mattresses. In its stage 1 response on 4 January 2024, the landlord appropriately provided the contact details of its insurance team to assist with this process, as well as information on what was required to make a claim which was appropriate.
  18. The landlord acknowledged in its final response that it there had been an delays registering the resident’s medical vulnerabilities reported following the leak. In its stage 1 response on 25 January 2024, it confirmed that it had acknowledged the medical reports provided by the resident in December 2021 and had now added this to its system. The landlord’s responses on the issue demonstrated it had investigated the issue, explained the error, and attempted to put things right for the resident through its action to correct the records, backdating this to when the information was received. It also committed to meet with the resident to go through the records should there be any inaccuracies.
  19. Overall, in response to the concerns raised by the resident about the condition of the property the landlord appropriately inspected the property in November 2023 and again in January 2024 and arranged for the completion of repairs for 7 February 2024. It is evident that while the landlord had taken appropriate actions following the leak in 2021, and in its assessment of the electrics in the kitchen, it acknowledged that communication with the resident could have been managed better and it had delayed in recording her vulnerabilities.
  20. The landlord attempted to put things right by offering compensation of £1150 and also through its reimbursement of the costs of the dehumidifier and heater of £1236, in line with its compensation policy. The compensation offered was at the high end of the landlord’s compensation policy, which reflected its awareness of the impact on the resident. The compensation, explanations and apologies offered by the landlord for its failings were reasonable and proportionate remedies to the distress and inconvenience caused. They were also in accordance with the Ombudsman’s own remedies guidance.

Complaint handling.

  1. The landlord has a 2 stage complaints process. At Stage 1 it aims to provide a response in 10 working days. At Stage 2, it aims to provide a response in 20 working days. Where complaints need longer to investigate it will send a holding response explaining the reason for the delay and when it will provide a full response. The policy says it does not address complaints over 12 months old.
  2. The resident reported to the Service that her previous complaint from December 2020 had not been escalated. The resident escalated this complaint on 12 May 2022 and again on 26 September 2023. On 5 October 2023, the landlord explained its decision not to escalate the complaint because the request was out of time. It apologised for failing to acknowledge this in May 2022. The landlord’s decision not to escalate her complaint was reasonable. At the time of the resident’s escalation request, the Scheme required residents to raise their concerns within 6 months from the issue arising. The landlord’s stage 1 response from December 2020 did not explain its policy about a 12-month time limit for review. However, the landlord has since included this in its complaint responses and complaint policy. 
  3. The resident raised her new complaint on 16 October 2023 along with other complaints which included some of the same issues. The landlord provided a stage 1 response on 17 November 2023 to a complaint raised on 10 October 2023 about repairs, rehousing and an inspection appointment. The resident escalated this on 28 November 2023. It is not clear if the landlord provided a stage 2 response to this complaint.
  4. On 5 December 2023, the Service asked the landlord to respond to the resident’s complaint escalation by 16 December 2023. The landlord told the Service on 13 December 2023 that the complaint was being investigated at stage 1 and due to its complexity it would be delayed. The landlord’s internal correspondence at the time shows the resident had 2 similar complaints which it was addressing in one response. While it was evident that the complaints included part of the same issues, and the escalation request received on 17 November 2023 also included these same issues, the landlord did not explain clearly to the resident how it intended to respond to the different complaints. As a result, she was unsure of when to expect responses.
  5. The landlord provided its first stage 1 response on 4 January 2024. This was a timeframe of 55 working days. The landlord informed the Service of the delay in its response due to the complexity of the complaint on 18 December 2023. However, there is no evidence of the landlord providing an update to the resident prior to this. The landlord took 36 working days to provide a stage 2 response. It informed the Service that it had agreed an extension with the resident until 8 March 2024. However, there was no evidence of the landlord providing a further update to the resident on the delay.
  6. Overall, the landlord’s complaint handling was poor. While the resident had submitted a number of complaints with overlapping issues in October 2023, the landlord was not clear with the resident on how it intended to respond to these. It was not clear if the resident received a stage 1 response for all the complaints raised.
  7. Furthermore, the landlord escalated the complaint to stage 2 because it had been unable to address all the issues at stage1. As a result, part of the issues did not have the opportunity for review at stage 2. This was not in line with the Code. The landlord’s final response acknowledged its delay in responding to the resident’s initial complaint due to an administrative error. It offered the resident £250 compensation for its complaint handling. While the landlord acknowledged its delay it has failed to recognise the further failings identified in this report.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 42.j. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the complaint about the landlord’s response to the resident’s request to be rehoused is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about repairs, damage to personal belongings, and household vulnerabilities.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.


Orders and recommendations

Orders.

  1. Within 4 weeks of this report the landlord is ordered to pay the resident compensation of £450 for its poor complaint handling. This amount is inclusive of the £250 it previously offered during its complaint responses.
  2. Evidence of compliance with this order must be provided by the deadline.

Recommendations.

  1. If it has not done so already, the landlord should pay the resident the £1150 compensation and £1236 reimbursement of costs it offered during the complaints process. The Ombudsman’s finding of reasonable redress is based on the understanding that this compensation is to be paid.