City of Westminster Council (202417749)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202417749

Westminster City Council

29 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. Repairs to a blocked pipe and associated leaks.
2. The recording of the resident’s vulnerabilities.
3. The associated complaint.

Background

The resident has lived in the property as a leaseholder since October 2020. The property is a 1-bedroom flat.
On 4 January 2024, the resident reported a leak from a soil stack pipe, which he said was affecting his kitchen. The resident chased the repair with the landlord’s contractor on 8 January 2024. He said the contractor had been to his property but had not fixed the leak.
The resident complained on 12 January 2024 there had been no response from the contractor. He said he was having to clean up sewage water using towels and it was affecting his health and wellbeing.
A surveyor attended the resident’s property on 19 January 2024 and raised repairs to unblock the pipe and repair damage caused by the leak. The surveyor noted the resident had disabilities.
In its complaint response on 26 January 2024, the landlord apologised for the “significant delay” and inconvenience caused. It said it would unblock the pipe on 30 January 2024 and repair leak damage once it had cleared the blockage. It offered the resident £50 for the delay and £50 for inconvenience.
On 13 February 2024, the resident told the landlord it had failed to support him as a person with physical disabilities. He also said contractors had damaged a pipe in his kitchen while unblocking the soil stack and this caused a further leak. He said the landlord had not repaired the leak damage.
The resident reported a further leak from the soil stack pipe on 19 March 2023 and escalated his complaint the same day. He complained the landlord had not considered his vulnerabilities. He wanted the landlord to fix the leak in the soil stack pipe and repair the kitchen pipe and leak damage.
In its final response on 29 May 2024 the landlord said its records did not show the resident’s vulnerability and how the leaks affected his wellbeing, but it would update these. It set out the work it would do to repair the damage to pipes in the kitchen. It offered £75 for repair delays, £75 for time, trouble, and inconvenience, and £50 for the delayed complaint response.
The resident escalated his complaint to the Ombudsman. He said the landlord had not recognised his disability and it had expected him to clean up sewage. He said the landlord had fixed the earlier leaks, but there were new leaks, which caused damp and mould. He wanted the leaks repaired, damp and mould treated, affected areas redecorated, and compensation.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The resident told the Ombudsman in April 2025 that he experienced further leaks after the landlord’s final response on 29 May 2024. The Ombudsman has decided that this is outside the scope of this investigation. This is because the Ombudsman will not consider matters that have not exhausted the landlord’s complaints process.

The landlord’s handling of repairs to a blocked pipe and associated leaks

The leaseholder’s handbook says it is the landlord’s responsibility to keep the structure of the building in good repair. This includes external pipes and drains. The landlord accepted responsibility for the blockage in the soil stack pipe.
The handbook also says that under the terms of the lease, it is the resident’s responsibility to look after the interior of the property, excluding structural items. It says where there is damage to decoration caused by water penetration from a fault to the structure, a resident may claim on its building insurance.
The landlord’s repairs policy says it will attend urgent repairs within 7 working days. These are repairs that do not pose an immediate safety risk but negatively affect access to utilities or need repair, such as blocked drains. It says it will complete routine repairs within 28 working days.
On 4 January 2024, the resident reported a blocked soil stack pipe, which he said caused sewage to leak into his flat. The landlord raised an urgent repair. The resident said the landlord’s contractor attended on 8 January 2024 and told him it could not unblock the pipe. He said the contractor told him it would return within 12 hours. The Ombudsman has found the landlord’s first response was reasonable as a contractor attended the urgent appointment within 3 working days. When it was unable to complete the repair, it said it would return.
However, the resident said when it did not return, he tried to call the contractor and then emailed them when he could not get through on the helpline. On 12 January 2024, the resident complained the contractor had not returned. He said the contractor had confirmed a blocked pipe caused the leak and it had partially cleared the blockage, but its equipment ran out of power. He wanted the landlord to get the contractor to return and complete the repairs.
When the landlord contacted the resident on 17 January 2024, he told the landlord there was a back surge from the pipe that was flooding the kitchen floor. The resident told the landlord he was using towels every day to clear the sewage. A surveyor attended on 19 January 2024 and raised work to unblock the pipe and repair damage inside the resident’s flat.
The Ombudsman has noted that this was over 2 weeks after the original report and a week after the resident complained. It is unclear why the landlord needed to raise a new job to unblock the pipe when it had already passed this to a contractor on 8 January 2024. As there was sewage in the resident’s flat, it would have been reasonable in the circumstances for the landlord to ask the contractor to urgently return to unblock the pipe.
In its complaint response on 26 January 2024, the landlord apologised for the “significant delay” and inconvenience caused. It said it would unblock the pipe on 30 January 2024 and would do remedial repairs once it had cleared the blockage. The remedial repairs were to scrape off damaged paint, and sand down and repaint damaged areas. It said it would also remove tiles and boxing from the ceiling in the kitchen, and then clean and reassemble like for like. It acknowledged delays and poor communication and offered £50 compensation.
The Ombudsman has seen that the leaseholder’s handbook makes it clear that the interior of the property is the resident’s responsibility. The handbook says when there is damage caused by a leak that is the landlord’s responsibility, a resident can make a claim on its insurance. In this case, the landlord said in its complaint response that it would do the remedial repairs and told the resident what work it would do. It did not tell the resident to make an insurance claim. This set a clear expectation that the landlord would repair the damage.
In its complaint response, the landlord said it would arrange work to unblock the pipe on 30 January 2024. This was 26 days after the resident reported the leak. The Ombudsman has found this was a failure by the landlord to meet its repairs policy, which says it will do urgent repairs in 7 days.
When the resident escalated his complaint on 13 February 2024, he said contractors had damaged a pipe while fixing the leak. He said this caused a leak in his flat when he used the washing machine and dishwasher. He also complained the landlord had not done the remedial repairs it promised.
On 19 March 2024 the resident told the landlord there was a new leak from the soil stack pipe. He said sewage water from other properties was leaking into his kitchen. The landlord spoke with the resident on 20 March 2024 and apologised that it had not fixed the leak. Records show the landlord attended on 5 April 2024 to assess what work it needed to do. It then arranged repairs for 26 April 2024. This was over 2 months after the resident reported the damage to the internal pipe and over a month after he reported a further leak in the soil stack pipe. The Ombudsman has found this was a further failure by the landlord to meet the timescales in its repairs policy.
On 20 May 2024 the resident told the landlord it had completed work to fix the pipes but had not done the remedial works. The landlord sent an internal email the same day asking for remedial repairs to be done as agreed.
In its final complaint response on 29 May 2024 the landlord said its records showed it had visited several times to fix the leak. It said it tried to do repairs on the first visit, but on some occasions this was not possible. It said on this occasion it needed to do more intrusive work, including breaking through a wall, to fix the leak. It apologised for the delay and acknowledged this caused inconvenience for the resident. It offered £150 compensation for delays, time, trouble, and inconvenience. This was in addition to the £100 for delays and inconvenience offered in the first complaint response.
The Ombudsman has found it was reasonable for the landlord to acknowledge and apologise for the delay. The Ombudsman accepts the work to repair the leak was complicated as it involved the landlord having to break through a wall before it finally resolved the leak. However, this was the landlord’s responsibility under the terms of the lease, and it took the landlord almost 4 months to fix the leak. Because of this, the Ombudsman has found there was a failure by the landlord as it did not complete repairs in line with its repairs policy.
During this time, the resident regularly had sewage leaking into his kitchen. This caused him significant distress. He also had to chase the landlord to get the repairs completed. The landlord offered the resident £250 compensation for the delays and inconvenience caused. This was reasonable redress in the circumstances as it is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance when there is a service failure.
After the landlord sent its final response, the resident replied and said he was happy with the leak repairs. However, he said the landlord had not repaired the damage caused by the leak. He said the landlord had now told him that as a leaseholder he needed to make an insurance claim. He said this was impossible as he needed to make a claim within 30 days of the leak, and the landlord had assured him it would do the repairs.
The resident continued to contact the landlord about the outstanding repairs and on 7 September 2024, he brought his complaint to the Ombudsman. On 10 September 2024, the landlord arranged to do the outstanding repairs.
The Ombudsman is aware the outstanding work was to repair damage to decoration. Under the terms of the lease, decoration is normally the resident’s responsibility, and when damage is from a leak the repair for which is the landlord’s responsibility, he could make an insurance claim. However, in this case the landlord clearly told the resident it would repair the damage once it had fixed the leak. This set clear expectations. At no time during the complaints process did the landlord tell the resident he was responsible, or he could make an insurance claim. The Ombudsman has found this was a service failure by the landlord.
The landlord did eventually repair the damage. However, because of the communication failure, the landlord caused the resident inconvenience as he had to chase the repairs. Because of this, the landlord must pay the resident a further £50 compensation for the inconvenience he experienced.
The resident told the Ombudsman in April 2025 that the landlord had done the repairs but there had been further leaks, which were causing damp and mould. Any further leaks are outside the scope of this investigation. However, the Ombudsman recommends the landlord contacts the resident to arrange an inspection to identify whether there are any leaks it is responsible for.

The landlord’s recording of the resident’s vulnerabilities

Under the Equality Act 2010, a landlord has a duty to make reasonable adjustments for residents with a protected characteristic. This includes people with a disability.
The landlord’s repairs policy says it will keep residents at the centre of everything it does and will treat them with empathy and respect when delivering its repairs service. Its supporting vulnerable residents and reasonable adjustments policy says it will complete a household support review when a resident reports a long-term vulnerability.
Although outside the scope of this investigation, the Ombudsman has seen the resident reported a leak on 27 September 2023. In his follow up communications, the resident told the landlord about his disabilities and how they affected his mobility. Evidence shows the landlord’s officers were aware of the resident’s disabilities. It is the Ombudsman’s view that because of the resident’s regular contact with the landlord about a leak in October 2023, it was reasonable for the landlord to have had a record of the resident’s vulnerabilities.
When the resident complained about a new leak on 12 January 2024, the landlord discussed the complaint with him on 17 January 2024. It noted the leak was affecting his health and wellbeing. A surveyor attended on 19 January 2023, and noted the resident had disabilities when he raised repairs.
In its complaint response on 6 January 2024, the landlord acknowledged the leaks were affecting the resident’s health and wellbeing. It offered £100 for delays and inconvenience. However, there is no evidence the landlord considered whether there were any reasonable adjustments it could make to support the resident with the effects of the leak.
When he escalated his complaint on 13 February 2024, the resident said the landlord had “systematically failed” to meet his needs as a person with physical disabilities. On 19 March 2023, when he reported a further leak the resident again referred to the effect on his disabilities. He said he had to clear up sewage using bath towels while using his walking stick. He said it was “really deleterious to my mental plus physical health as I am registered disabled”.
On 30 April 2024 records provided by the landlord say an officer would call the resident on 1 May 2024 so it could record his vulnerabilities on its system. The Ombudsman has found that while this was a positive step, it was 4 months after the resident reported the leak, and 7 months after he had reported an earlier leak when he had clearly referred to his disabilities.
In its final response on 29 May 2024 the landlord said the records it used when dealing with repairs did not show any record of the resident’s vulnerability. It said it was not aware of how the leaks had affected his wellbeing. It apologised for the oversight and said it would update its records.
The Ombudsman has found the resident clearly told the landlord about his disabilities on many occasions. Records show the landlord’s officers were also aware of the resident’s disabilities, and the effect the leaks were having on him. This contradicts what the landlord said in its final response. Because of this, it appears the landlord did not update its records following contact from the resident or its officers’ reports. This left the resident having to deal with the effects of the leak and clean up sewage without any offer of support.
The Ombudsman has found that by not recording the resident’s disabilities, the landlord did not follow its repairs policy, as it did not treat him with empathy. It also did not complete a household support review when the resident reported his vulnerabilities, and because of this did not consider reasonable adjustments. It is the Ombudsman’s view that the failure to consider reasonable adjustments was maladministration.
In line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, the Ombudsman finds maladministration when there has been a significant failure. Because of this the landlord must pay the resident £200 for the failure to respond to his needs and the distress this caused.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

The landlord’s complaints policy says it aims to provide a response at stage 1 in 10 working days. At Stage 2, it aims to provide a response in 20 working days. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.
Records show the resident complained on 12 January 2024 about a contractor’s failure to repair a leak. The landlord responded on 26 January 2024, which was 11 working days later. This was slightly outside the timescale in its complaints policy but there was no detriment to the resident.
The resident escalated his complaint on 19 March 2024. Records show the landlord did not send its final response until 29 May 2024, which was over 2 months later. The Ombudsman has found that this was a failure by the landlord to follow its complaints policy.
In its final response the landlord apologised for the delay and offered £50 compensation for not meeting its timescales. In mitigation, the landlord had told the resident on 3 May 2024 that it needed more time to respond as it was trying to resolve the issues about which he had complained. Because of this, the Ombudsman has found there was reasonable redress by the landlord.

Determination

In line with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
1. Service failure by the landlord on its handling of repairs to a blocked pipe and associated leaks.
2. Maladministration by the landlord on the recording of the resident’s vulnerabilities.
In line with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress by the landlord on its handling of the associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord must apologise to the resident for the failures found in this report.
The landlord must pay the resident £250 compensation for the failures found in this report. It must pay compensation directly to the resident and not offset it against any arrears. This is made up of:
1. £50 for inconvenience caused by communication failures.
2. £200 for the failure to respond to the resident’s needs and distress caused.
The landlord must review how it records reports of vulnerabilities when a resident tells the landlord about them. It must provide the Ombudsman with information on how it will ensure it records details of vulnerabilities.
The landlord is to provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance with the above orders within 4 weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends the landlord contacts the resident to arrange an inspection to identify whether there are any leaks it is responsible for.
The Ombudsman recommends the landlord reoffers the £300 compensation offered in its complaint responses if it has not already paid it to the resident.