City of Westminster Council (202323288)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202323288

Westminster City Council

24 April 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 reports of:
   1. a leak into the property;
   2. faulty lighting.

Background

2. The resident has a secure tenancy that started on 3 April 2006. The resident is a tenant of the council. The property is on the 14th floor and is a 2-bedroom maisonette. There are 2 children aged under 5 years old living in the property.
3. The leak into the resident’s property relates to the resident’s neighbour who will be referred to as “Tenant A”/”Property A” within this report. The tenancy agreement for Tenant A has not been provided for this investigation. However, it is assumed that the tenancy terms will be the same as for the resident.
4. On 15 April 2023, the resident reported a leak through her bedroom ceiling which she said started 3 days earlier. The landlord attended that day but was unable to gain access to the resident’s property.
5. The electrics to the resident’s property were restored on 18 April 2023. The electrician noted that the pendant light to the bedroom would be reinstated once the leak had stopped and bathroom lights were not working. The landlord replaced the tap in Tenant A’s property on 20 April 2023.
6. The resident reported the leak had restarted around 2 May 2023 and water was coming through 2 lights that had been disconnected. An operative noted the electrics could not be reinstated as the lights kept tripping. An appointment was made for 3 May 2023.
7. The resident complained to the landlord on 8 June 2023. She said:
   1. The landlord had failed to respond to a complaint made on 5 May 2023 and the situation remained unresolved after 3 months.
   2. The building was poorly designed and was uninhabitable. The property had no lights and there were multiple leaks into the bedroom and bathroom ceilings.
   3. There was a 6-month-old baby and a 2-year-old child living in the property.
   4. There was a danger from mould, fire and electrocution. Therefore, the landlord should arrange to rehouse her and make the property habitable.
   5. Compensation should be paid for neglect and the issue should be treated as an emergency.
   6. The leak was entering her grandson’s bedroom from the tenant above and through the light fitting in the bathroom.
   7. She could not remain in the flat. She knew her neighbours had refused access for the repairs to be carried out. Her preferred outcome was for the landlord to gain access to Tenant A’s property and repair the leak.
8. The landlord provided its Stage 1 complaint response on 13 July 2023. The landlord found the following:
   1. Report of leak
      1. The leak into the bedroom ceiling was reported on 16 April 2023. An electrician attended the following day to make the electrics safe.
      2. It visited Tenant A and found the source of the leak was a faulty tap.
      3. The tap and isolation values were replaced and the leak was resolved.
   2. Pre inspection
      1. A surveyor inspection took place on 6 June 2023 and found the leak was ongoing and affecting the upper floor of the property.
      2. The leak was intermittent and could be coming from Tenant A’s property or the water service pipes within the walls of the property.
      3. The property was not uninhabitable or unsafe so temporary accommodation was not required.
      4. It acknowledged a delay in referral to the leak detection team for further diagnosis and investigation.
      5. A surveyor visited Tenant A on 6 July 2023. An appointment was agreed for 12 July 2023 for the leak detection team to visit multiple addresses and diagnose the cause of any ongoing leak.
   3. Test and trial process to locate cause of leak
      1. Intrusive tests and checks of the toilet, bathroom, kitchen and riser spaces in various properties were done. This included the use of different dyes and the removal of panelling and plinths to inspect any hidden supply and waste pipework and surrounding surfaces.
      2. All pipework, floor and wall surfaces were found to be dry.
   4. Remedial decoration works
      1. A contractor would arrange a convenient appointment once the property had dried out to determine the remedial and decoration works required.
   5. Complaint handling
      1. It acknowledged and apologised for the delay in providing the complaint response.
      2. It awarded £20 compensation in recognition of the delay.
   6. Conclusion
      1. The complaint was upheld. The landlord apologised for the delay in arranging an in-depth investigation by the leak detection team.
      2. It awarded overall compensation of £120. This was broken down as £70 for the delay in arranging the investigation by the leak detection team (from 6 June 2023 to 12 July 2023), £30 for the time and trouble experienced by the resident and £20 for the complaint response delay.
9. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s complaint response and escalated her complaint on 23 August 2023. She said:
   1. The landlord provided an inhumane complaint response following months of inaction. There were 2 adults and 2 children aged under 5 living in the property.
   2. There were leaks throughout the property making it uninhabitable. The property had no lights which was a safety concern. Emergency lights were not suitable with a baby and toddler living in the property. She said they could not remain in the property and requested rehousing.
   3. The leaks affected the upstairs bedroom, closet and her belongings. A carpet had also been ruined.
   4. She experienced 5 months of inaction and there was black mould on the ceiling, which was a health and safety risk to the children.
10. The landlord provided its final complaint response on 21 September 2023. It made the following findings:
    1. Persistent leaks throughout the property causing damage to personal belongings and carpets
       1. On 5 May 2023, a corroded wastepipe in Tenant A’s property was replaced. There was no evidence of an active leak on 6 June 2023 but damp was identified in the property.
       2. The property was not uninhabitable or unsafe. Therefore, alternative accommodation was not necessary.
       3. It apologised again for the delay in making the referral to the leak detection team.
       4. Following the referral on 6 July 2023, a follow-on appointment was arranged for 12 July 2023 to assess the resident’s and neighbouring properties. It was unable to access the resident’s property on 12 July 2023. However, the other properties were assessed to be dry.
       5. The resident’s property was surveyed on 9 August 2023.The leak was assessed as resolved. However, droplets of water were found from the ceiling in a small cupboard in the bedroom at top of the stairs.
       6. The affected bedroom ceiling was located directly below Tenant A’s living room floor and there was no pipework is in this area. Also, on inspection, it did not identify a leak in Tenant A’s property – it did not have radiator pipework and the kitchen waste was intact.
       7. It assessed that the droplets into the resident’s property were caused by the residual water from the leak. This should have dried out. A survey of property on 4 September 2023 confirmed the property was dry enough for the remedial decoration works to take place.
       8. An order was raised and appointment confirmed for the following repairs:

(1)  Fill cracks to bedroom cupboard and redecorate.

(2)  Redecorate ceiling in bedroom 1.

(3)  Prepare plaster and redecorate ceiling in bedroom 2.

(4)  Redecorate toilet area.

9. After completion of the decoration works, a post inspection would be carried out to confirm the works were completed to the required standard.
10. There was no evidence that there were multiple persistent leaks affecting different areas of the property. It accepted it had misdiagnosed the original cause of the leak which was later traced to a corroded water pipe. No other leaks were identified.
11. The leak impacted several areas of the property such as bedrooms and the toilet. It was confident it had identified the leak and was satisfied with the action taken to resolve this.
12. It was sorry the resident’s personal belongings were damaged by the water leaks but it did not indemnify residents who experienced damage to personal belongings, fixtures and fittings (including carpets) due to water leaks. It recommended that residents take out home insurance contents insurance and provided a link for her to do so.
13. If the resident believed damage or loss was due to the landlord’s actions, a public liability claim could be made to its insurers. A link was provided for this.

2. Inadequate lighting
   1. It apologised for the time taken to completely restore the lighting to the property. It said that electrics were isolated to make sure the lighting was safe and this could not be restored until it was satisfied the leak was resolved.
   2. Temporary lighting was provided as a short-term solution but this was not as powerful as fixed lights.
   3. The electrics were partially reinstated on 31 August 2023. The lighting was not fully restored as a fault was identified. A follow up appointment was arranged for 29 September 2023.
   4. This element of complaint was not upheld as the resident’s safety was paramount. In the first instance, it would always make sure the property was safe. It also had a duty of care to provide a temporary solution when basic amenities were affected due to a repair issue.
3. Habitability and request to be decanted
   1. The leak was traced and resolved on 5 May 2023. It had assessed in June 2023 that there was no evidence to suggest the property was uninhabitable or unsafe.
   2. Damp was identified in early June 2023 and droplets of water were witnessed in on 9 August 2023 but this was residual standing water from the initial leak.
   3. It considered the suitability of the property on 4 September 2023 and did not identify any risks that the property was unsafe.
   4. The housing officer did a welfare check visit on 15 September 2023.
   5. It apologised if the reason for the leak was not properly communicated. It would carry out a further inspection on 28 September 2023 to verify the leak was resolved.
   6. While a temporary move could not be considered, information was given on the different ways to access permanent accommodation.
4. Conclusion
   1. The complaint was partially upheld as the cause of the leak was misdiagnosed, contributing to the delay. It apologised and recognised the disruption and inconvenience experienced by the resident.
   2. It awarded compensation of £320 – this was the £120 offered at stage 1 plus £150 for inconvenience and lack of communication and £50 due to the time and trouble caused to the resident.
   3. The post inspection date had been confirmed with the resident and it would ensure compliance within 1 month.

11. After the complaint process ended, the following events occurred:
    1. On 8 March 2024, a post inspection was carried out. The landlord confirmed there was no active leak. It noted that decorations to the bedroom and toilet ceilings was not complete and there was mould on the bathroom ceiling.
    2. A bedroom pendant was installed on 2 February 2024 and electrical works were completed on 15 March 2024.
    3. Decorations were done on 19 March 2024 and 20 March 2024. A further post inspection was carried out on 23 August 2024 which found:
       1. The bedroom ceiling needed to be sanded and painted.
       2. Toilet walls needed to be painted like for like.
       3. The bedroom light cover needed to be replaced.
       4. A wire connection cover was missing (it was not clear what room).
       5. The resident had not reported further leaks in the property.

Assessment and findings

Policies and procedures

12. The tenant handbook says that the landlord will respond and make safe emergency repairs within 24 hours and complete urgent repairs within 3 working days. Non–urgent repairs will be completed within 28 working days.
13. The landlord’s damp and mould policy says its surveyor will visit within 3 working days of receiving a report and works will be raised within 10 days. Works will be post inspected after 3 months and a point of contact will be appointed for residents.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of a leak into the property

14. The resident was upset and distressed by the leak into the property and frustrated by the landlord’s handling of her concerns. The resident’s feelings are understood and it is not disputed that she found the situation stressful. We have assessed each step of the landlord’s handling of this matter in turn below.

Initial leak

15. Landlords are obliged to maintain the home to a reasonable standard and respond to reports of repairs in a reasonable time frame. The landlord is responsible for keeping in repair the installations for the supply of water. It is accepted that tracing the cause of a leak can be complex. In this case, the landlord has acknowledged it initially misdiagnosed the cause of the leak.
16. On its first attendance to Property A in mid-April 2023, the landlord diagnosed the fault to be a kitchen tap which was replaced. After the resident reported the leak was ongoing in early May 2023, it re–attended and replaced corroded waste pipework. It was reasonable that the landlord recognised the initial misdiagnosis and apologised for its mistake in its subsequent complaint responses.
17. It was also reasonable for the landlord in its complaint responses to acknowledge and apologise for its delay in making a referral to its leak detection team. This occurred between June to July 2023. The landlord recognised that this contributed to the delay experienced by the resident.
18. Any quality inspection to identify the reason for a leak should include an assessment of all probable causes such as checking the building for faults. The leak detection team carried out thorough checks in July 2023 to neighbouring properties. These consisted of dye tests and the removal of plinths and panelling to check hidden supply and waste pipework. The landlord found no evidence of active leaks and it was reasonable for it to assume that the leak was resolved.
19. The landlord assessed in August 2023 that water droplets in the resident’s property was residual water from the previous leak. This is because there was no evidence of ongoing leaks from Tenant A and no radiator pipes which could be the source of any leak. It was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the professional opinion it received from its surveyors.
20. However, at the earlier inspection on 6 June 2023, the landlord identified there were damp stains on the ceiling. Mould treatment was recommended. It then took over 9 months before the mould treatment took place – on 15 March 2024. This was not in line with the landlord’s damp and mould policy which says mould treatment should take place within 10 working days.
21. The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on damp and mould advises landlords to have a zero-tolerance approach towards damp and mould. It is understandable that the landlord’s delay caused distress to the resident who was concerned about the impact of the mould on her 2 grandchildren. Although the landlord assessed risk and did a welfare check in September 2023, there is no evidence that it re-considered this in the 6 months between its final complaint response and the completion of mould treatment.
22. The landlord agreed to carry out decoration works to the affected bedroom and bathroom ceiling once the electrics to the property were restored. Although this was promised in September 2023, we have seen evidence that decorations were still partially outstanding as recently as August 2024. This represented an unacceptable delay.
23. The Ombudsman expects commitments made in the complaints process to be kept. However, it took nearly 11 months (until August 2024) for the inspection of the decoration works. The landlord’s delay of almost a year to complete the agreed decoration works was unreasonable, especially as the inspection found some of the workmanship did not meet an acceptable standard. The landlord’s records do not properly explain the reason for the delay in the completion of the works. This is not reasonable as the delay caused further inconvenience and frustration to the resident.

Alternative accommodation

24. The resident told the landlord that the property was uninhabitable and requested it provide alternative accommodation for her and her family. The property was inspected on multiple occasions by the landlord’s surveyor – on 6 June 2023, 9 August 2023 and 4 September 2023.
25. The surveyor assessed that the property was not unsuitable to live in, there were no risks and temporary housing was not required. It was reasonable for the landlord to inspect the property before reaching a decision about whether alternative accommodation was required.
26. Given the resident’s request to move to alternative accommodation, it was reasonable for the landlord to offer information in its final complaint response on ways she could potentially move. It appropriately signposted the resident to available housing options such as a mutual exchange and bidding for housing.

Insurance

27. The landlord confirmed in its final complaint response that the resident could make a claim for damage to her belongings. It signposted her to make a liability claim. It is not within the Ombudsman’s authority to determine negligence as this is a matter more appropriately considered by an insurance or legal process. Nevertheless, it was reasonable of the landlord to refer the resident to make a public liability claim if she did not have home contents insurance.

Summary

28. There were service failings in the landlord’s service delivery to the resident. It acknowledged its initial misdiagnosis of the reason for the leak and a late referral to the leak detection team and awarded a total of £320 compensation (£20 of which was for complaint handling).
29. However, there were additional failings identified by the Ombudsman such as delayed mould treatment and decoration works. These indicate that the landlord did not learn lessons from the outcome of the case or keep to the commitments it made in its final complaint response. This meant it did not fully put right the failings that occurred between April and July 2023. We have therefore ordered additional compensation in recognition of the related distress and inconvenience caused to the resident over an extended period of time.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of faulty lighting

30. The landlord is responsible for the maintenance of the electrical supply in the property.
31. The lighting in the property was impacted by the leak that occurred in April-May 2023. The out of hours team attended on 18 April 2023. They partially reinstated the lighting except for the pendant light to the small bedroom and the bathroom. It was appropriate for the landlord to attend within an urgent timescale to make safe the electrics and it is accepted that lighting could not be fully reinstated while there was an active leak.
32. The landlord said in its final complaint response that the property still had an interim electrical supply on 31 August 2023 but a fault meant lighting could not be fully reinstated until September 2023.
33. However, the landlord’s communications on this matter were not sufficient. While it is appropriate to provide an interim electrical and lighting supply until safe to fully restore, its records do not show that it kept the resident regularly informed of progress. Had it done so, this would have given reassurance to the resident that it was taking the matter seriously.
34. It apparently took a further 6 months to 20 February 2024 for all the lights to be restored. The landlord was aware in late August 2023 that only 80% of the lighting was working. It has not provided an explanation for the delays in fully reinstating the lighting. to reinstating the electrical supply. We have therefore made a finding of maladministration and ordered compensation given these delays.

Determination

35. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of a leak into the property.
36. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of faulty lighting.

Orders

37. Within 4 weeks of the date of the determination, the landlord should:
    1. Write to the resident to apologise for the service failures identified in this report.
    2. Pay the resident £700 compensation, including the £320 it agreed to pay in its final complaint response. This is broken down as:
       1. £450 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by the failings in its handling of the leak into the property.
       2. £250 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by the failings in its handling of the faulty lighting.

If the landlord has already paid the £320 it offered to the resident, it can offset this amount from the £700 ordered above and pay the remaining balance to the resident. This amount should be paid to the resident and not offset against any arrears owed by her.

3. Contact the resident to arrange a mutually convenient appointment to inspect the decorations to the bedroom and bathroom ceiling. It must write to the resident 2 weeks after the inspection to confirm whether further decoration works are required and, if so, the planned completion dates for these.

38. The landlord must provide evidence of compliance with the above orders in the timescales set out above.