City of Westminster Council (202420039)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202420039

Westminster City Council

30 May 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 the resident’s reports of:
1. repairs to the bathroom and kitchen, including her concerns about contractor conduct.
2. repairs to the windows.
3. repairs to 2 electrical sockets.
The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Background

The resident has been a secure tenant of the landlord, a local authority, since 2005. The property is a 2-bedroom, third-floor maisonette. The resident lives with her children. There are no recorded vulnerabilities for the household.
In November 2023 the landlord attended the resident’s property to undertake works to the bathroom and bedroom including a mould wash, painting and decorating works. In the same month, the resident reported draughty living room windows and kitchen disrepair. She said the countertops and cupboards in her kitchen needed replacing and the flooring was “sinking in”.
On 1 December 2023 the resident raised a complaint. She said:
1. she had raised repairs 4 weeks ago and was told a surveyor would be in contact within 5 working days. She said she had not heard from anyone in respect of these repairs.
2. other repairs had been raised by a surveyor 6 weeks ago which remained incomplete.
3. she found the surveyor unprofessional, her mental health was suffering, and she wanted the works completed.
On 11 December 2023 the landlord issued its stage 1 response. It said:
1. it had telephoned the resident on receipt of her complaint. During this call she expressed dissatisfaction with the landlord’s responsiveness and quality of the work.
2. it had arranged a surveyor inspection on 7 December 2023, the outcome of which was:
  1. to replace the double glazing in the living room window and re-apply mastic to the windows in the living room and the windowsill in the bedroom.
  2. to check whether the property was eligible for inclusion in the kitchen and bathroom replacement programme.
  3. to replace and reposition her bath panel.
  4. that she would have to wait for pest control to ensure they could go ahead with works.
3. a contractor would be in touch within the following 14 days to schedule appointments to complete the works.
4. it offered her £50 for the lack of communication which led to her having to contact the landlord to chase a response to her reports of repairs.
Between December 2023 and April 2024 several works were undertaken at the resident’s property, including the replacement of her kitchen and bathroom and repairs to the windows. During this period the resident also reported faults with the electrical sockets.
On 14 April 2024 the resident escalated her complaint. She wanted all the complaint aspects assessed at stage 1 to be investigated. She said works were outstanding. On 19 June 2024 the resident told the landlord an electrician had missed 2 appointments in April 2024.
On 26 June 2024 the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response. It said:
1. its contractor had missed 2 appointments without explanation and was late to another 2 appointments. It upheld this element of the complaint.
2. the resident felt the quality of the work undertaken for the kitchen replacement was poor and remedial works remained outstanding despite a surveyor inspection. The landlord upheld the fact that the resident had chased works initially. It said the resident had since told the landlord on the telephone that all works were completed apart from sealant on 1 window frame. The landlord said if this was not the case, she should let it know.
3. the resident said the operatives were unprofessional and had left her bath panel open which posed a risk to her child. This was because bait had been left behind the bath panel for pests. She also said the contractors had disposed of her towel rail without permission. In response, the landlord:
  1. expressed concern about the resident’s reports about the contractors. It said it should have put in a temporary measure regarding the open panel of the bath.
  2. said it had reminded all contractors of the importance of discarded materials.
  3. said it would review its pre–assessment process to ensure as much information as possible about a household’s needs were captured.
  4. said it did not offer to rehouse the resident during the kitchen and bathroom replacement because it would have been outside the decant policy. The landlord acknowledged the works were not a smooth process for the resident.
  5. said it would reimburse her for the cost of the towel rail if she could evidence proof of purchase.
4. in conclusion it apologised for its failings and offered the resident compensation of £505 comprised of:
  1. £80 for the 2 missed and 2 late appointments.
  2. £100 for poor communication regarding the remedial works.
  3. £100 for leaving a bath panel exposed.
  4. £25 for its late response to her complaint and failing to meet the revised date given.
  5. £200 for delays in remedial works completed to her kitchen and bathroom and for her having to chase this up in March and April 2024.
The resident responded to the landlord on the same day advising that she was unhappy with the response. She said an electrician had attended the property, but she remained concerned about the safety of the fuseboard. She said there were outstanding works to the bathroom and kitchen. The landlord advised her to contact this Service if she was dissatisfied with its response.
In May 2025 the resident said remedial works to the kitchen and bathroom were outstanding including painting, faulty plumbing and missing cupboards. She said the window in the living room was still letting in a draught. She would like these issues to be addressed and for the landlord to make a new offer of compensation.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

From November 2024 to March 2025 the resident was temporarily rehoused by the landlord due to a leak from the flat above. The landlord undertook some works to the property during this period. These matters did not form part of the original complaint brought to us. Accordingly, this investigation will only consider the issues addressed in the landlord’s stage 2 response on 26 June 2024. Reference to events that occurred as a result of the leak are made in this report to provide context only.

Relevant policies and guidance

The repairs handbook for tenants states that when a resident reports a repair, the landlord will give them a target time for when the repair will be completed. If there is a delay, the landlord will let the resident know. The repair timescales are:
1. immediate – the landlord will attend within 2 hours and make safe the repair within 24 hours.
2. urgent – the landlord will complete the repair within 7 days.
3. non urgent (or routine) – the landlord will complete the repair within 28 days.
The landlord’s compensation policy states that it will compensate residents £20 for each missed appointment.
The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on repairs, published in 2019, says that landlords should confirm appointments with residents and send reminders by text message or other agreed method of contact, if the resident agrees to this. It should be sure to update the resident if it needs to reschedule.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs to the bathroom and kitchen, including contractor conduct.

On 3 November 2023 the landlord’s repair records show the following jobs raised:
1. to complete a mould wash and redecoration works to the resident’s bathroom and upstairs bedroom.
2. to inspect the kitchen, which she said was in a general state of disrepair.
The landlord prioritised works to the bathroom and upstairs bedroom as urgent and completed a mould wash, anti-fungal paint and stain block to the areas affected on 6 November 2023. This was appropriate and in line with the timescales in the repairs handbook.
There is no evidence the landlord arranged an appointment with the resident to investigate the reported kitchen disrepair. This was a failing when assessed against the guidance in the repairs handbook.
The resident raised a complaint on 1 December 2023. In the complaint she said she had not heard from the landlord’s surveyors about some of the reported repairs. She said there were also remedial works outstanding. It is not clear from the complaint what specific repairs she was referring to. She said she found the landlord’s contractors unprofessional, and this had negatively affected her mental health.
In response to the complaint, the landlord arranged for a surveyor to inspect the property on 7 December 2023. This was a reasonable and proactive attempt to investigate the issue and put things right for the resident.
In the stage 1 complaint response on 10 December 2023, the landlord apologised and offered her £50 for delays and poor communication. The landlord outlined the remaining repairs to her bathroom and said she would be contacted within 14 days to progress these. It also said it would check if she was eligible for inclusion in the bathroom and kitchen replacement programme. The landlord outlined what it would do and provided timescales. The landlord was trying to put things right for the resident, which was reasonable.
The resident told the landlord on 18 December 2023 that she had been contacted by the contractors but that she was waiting for some holes to be filled by pest control before works could go ahead. The landlord acknowledged her communication on the same day and asked her to let it know if she needed anything else. This was appropriate and in line with what was agreed in the stage 1 complaint response.
On 5 January 2024 the landlord’s repair records show that it raised a full kitchen and bathroom replacement job, in line with the bathroom and kitchen replacement programme. The job was completed on 26 February 2024. It was appropriate that the landlord followed through on its agreement to check the resident’s eligibility for kitchen and bathroom replacement and arrange works accordingly.
It is not clear from the records when the resident was informed of the plan to undertake the work or what the timescales for completion were. This Service is therefore unable to assess whether the landlord acted in accordance with agreed timescales as set out in its policies.
In the stage 2 complaint response, the landlord said:
1. the resident reported a poor-quality standard of work to the kitchen and outlined outstanding remedial works.
2. the resident reported that the operatives were unprofessional and did not acknowledge her concerns around a bath panel being left open and the risk this posed to her child.
3. the resident reported that the contractors threw away a towel rail she had purchased.
4. it could see that the resident had contacted it to raise several issues with the quality of the repairs and redecoration.
This Service has not been provided with evidence of the resident’s communication to the landlord, either in the form of a detailed complaint escalation request or records of reports of dissatisfaction with the new kitchen and bathroom works.
Accurate record keeping is essential and helps to ensure landlords meet their repair obligations. The landlord also has an obligation to provide this Service with sufficient information to enable a thorough investigation. In this case, the records provided by the landlord were limited and its poor record keeping has made it difficult to determine whether its actions were fair and reasonable in the circumstances.
The landlord expressed concern about the resident’s reports of the contractor’s behaviour and agreed that the contractor behaved unacceptably. It apologised that a temporary bath panel was not put in place to address the risk. It offered the resident £100 in recognition of the failing. It said it would:
1. remind all contractors of the importance of only discarding materials when they are no longer needed.
2. review the pre-assessment process to ensure that as much information as possible was captured about a household.
3. consider reimbursement of the towel rail on receipt of proof of purchase.
The landlord made efforts to put things right for the resident and outlined how it would learn from the failures identified in future. This was an appropriate response to the resident’s concerns about its contractor’s conduct.
In the stage 2 response, the landlord said it had spoken to the resident since the stage 2 escalation and the resident confirmed that the works were now completed. It acknowledged that it had taken until April 2024 to complete works, even though they began in January 2024. It offered the resident £200 for the delays to the kitchen and bathroom renewal, and for the inconvenience she experienced in having to chase the matter to get a resolution.
The landlord accepted responsibility for delays in completing repairs and tried to put things right by making an offer of financial redress. However, the resident responded on the day of its stage 2 complaint response advising the landlord that works to the bathroom and kitchen remained outstanding.
The landlord advised the resident that its stage 2 response was final and signposted her to the Ombudsman. Given that the landlord had invited the resident to inform it of any outstanding works as part of its stage 2 response, its decision not to respond to the resident’s concerns was unreasonable.
Once the landlord was on notice of outstanding repairs in the kitchen and bathroom, it should have ensured a timely response to the resident in line with its repairs policy. It would have been appropriate for it to have arranged an inspection of the property to satisfy itself that it had put things right for the resident in response to her complaint.
The record’s show that the landlord visited the property in July 2024 and September 2024. It did not raise any follow-up works or confirm work completion as an outcome of these visits. Although the resident did not continue to regularly chase the landlord in respect of outstanding repairs to her kitchen and bathroom, the landlord was still on notice that the resident had reported outstanding works on 26 June 2024. That it did not put things right for the resident was not reasonable.
From November 2024 to March 2025 the resident was temporarily rehoused due to a leak from the flat above. We have not assessed the landlord’s handling of repairs in relation to the leak. However, the landlord completed internal decorations at the property to enable the resident to move back in. An inspection was completed at the property in March 2025 assessing the redecoration works.
Despite this inspection, the resident told this Service that the substantive issues relating to this complaint, including repairs to the bathroom and kitchen, remain outstanding. These include repairs to the kitchen cupboards, the bath and shower being incorrectly fitted and issues with pipework. The landlord has not provided any repair records or inspection notes to confirm it has completed the associated repair works. As such, we cannot conclude that the landlord has carried out all the repairs it was obliged to.

Conclusion

In recognition of various failings throughout the complaint, the landlord offered the resident a total of £350 compensation over the 2 complaint responses. It also evidenced some learning from the failures regarding contractor conduct.
However, we have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs to the kitchen and bathroom because of:
1. the landlord’s poor record keeping.
2. the landlord’s failure to evidence that it has resolved the issues the resident had complained of, in line with its repairs policy and the actions agreed in its complaint responses.
3. the length of the delays.
The amount of £350 compensation offered to the resident was not quite proportionate to the failings identified. In accordance with our remedies guidance we have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £450 in total for the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the bathroom and kitchen. This is inclusive of the £350 already offered.
We have also ordered the landlord to undertake a post-works inspection of the kitchen and bathroom to establish whether any further works are required. Any outstanding works identified should be agreed with the resident and timescales provided.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs to the windows

On 3 November 2023 the resident reported feeling a draught from her living room window. The landlord raised a job to inspect this and set a target date of 8 November 2023 for work completion. No action was taken and on 23 November 2023 the repair records note that the landlord acknowledged it had missed the target date. It neither communicated this to the resident, nor did it issue her with a new appointment date. This was unreasonable and inconsistent with the standards set out in its repairs handbook.
The resident raised a complaint on 1 December 2023. In response, the landlord arranged for a surveyor to inspect the property on 7 December 2023. This was a reasonable and proactive attempt to investigate the issue and put things right for the resident.
In the stage 1 complaint response, the landlord agreed to renew a double-glazing unit downstairs and to clear and renew mastic along the windowsill in the living room and rear bedroom. It apologised that she had to chase repairs and said a surveyor would contact her within 14 days. The landlord acknowledged its failing and set out works to put things right. This was reasonable and in line with this Service’s dispute resolution principles.
The repair records show that on 11 December 2023 the contractor arranged an appointment with the resident for 17 January 2024 to measure up the window. This appointment went ahead and a follow up appointment to complete works was arranged for 7 February 2024. This was consistent with the landlord’s agreement in the stage 1 complaint, which was reasonable.
The contractors failed to attend the appointment on 7 February 2024. They did not inform the resident and she chased the appointment the next day. Residents should be kept informed of any changes to appointments. This was a failing in communication and inconsistent with the agreement in the repairs handbook.
The records show that the job was completed on 21 March 2024. This was 4 months after the repair was raised and 3 months after the stage 1 complaint response. This was a significant delay when assessed against the repair target, which was inappropriate.
On 14 June 2024 the resident raised a stage 2 complaint. There is no detailed record of the resident’s stage 2 complaint within the records, which is a record keeping failure. On 19 June 2024 she said there was still a draught from the downstairs window.
In the stage 2 complaint response, the landlord said the resident had advised it that her heating bills had increased because works to one of the windows remained outstanding. In response, it apologised for the delay in completing the works. It said it would consider reimbursing part of her heating bill on receipt of evidence of the increase. It is unclear if the resident has provided this information to the landlord.
It offered the resident £100 for poor communication throughout the repairs process. These were attempts by the landlord to put things right for the resident, which was reasonable.
Given that the landlord acknowledged the resident’s report that works remained on one of the windows, it would have been appropriate for it to have arranged an inspection to ensure it had successfully completed the repair. The resident reported to this Service that window continues to let in cold.
We have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs to the windows. This is because the redress offered was not proportionate to the failures identified. The failures were as follows:
1. there were significant delays in addressing the repair throughout the complaint.
2. it failed to adhere to appointment times.
3. it did not ensure that the repair was successfully completed in light of the resident’s reports of outstanding issues.
In line with our remedies guidance, we have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £200 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by the failures identified. This is inclusive of the £100 already offered. We have also ordered the landlord to undertake an inspection of the window to address the resident’s report that it continues to let in a draught. This is in line with our dispute resolution principles to put things right.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs to 2 electrical sockets

On 1 March 2024 the resident told the landlord that 1 double electrical socket in the living room and 1 double electrical socket in her property had stopped working. The repair was categorised as routine and the resident was given an appointment date of 11 March 2024. This was appropriate and in line with the information in the repairs handbook.
The repair records note on 11 March 2024 that the contractor attended but that there was no access provided or response on the telephone. Tenants have a responsibility to allow access for repairs to be completed. However, it is unclear from the records whether the contractors had attended the appointment at the agreed time.
No further information is available on the electrical works until the resident raised it again on 19 June 2024. It was unreasonable that the resident had to chase the issue. The landlord was on notice about the repair on 1 March 2024. It would have been reasonable and in line with the repairs handbook for it to have contacted the resident or arranged another appointment with the resident to put things right in response to her repair request.
On 19 June 2024 resident stated that the electrical contractor had missed 2 appointments in April 2024. On this same date an electrician attended, tested and repaired the faulty sockets and closed the repair. This was 100 days after the resident raised the repair, which was unreasonable and outside the timescales in the repairs handbook.
In the stage 2 complaint response on 26 June 2024, the landlord apologised to the resident for the 2 missed appointments and 2 late appointments. It acknowledged that she was not given an explanation. To put things right, it offered her £80. This was £20 for each appointment. This was in line with the landlord’s compensation policy for missed appointments. However, the landlord failed to recognise the overall delay in it resolving the issue and the impact this had on the resident.
On 26 June 2024 the resident responded to the landlord stating that she had concerns around the safety of a fuse board in her property and the risk this may have to her child. Given that the landlord had invited the resident to inform it of any outstanding works as part of its stage 2 response, its decision not to respond to the resident’s concerns was unreasonable.
The resident told this Service that the electrical repairs were completed in 2024 and there were no ongoing issues.
We have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs to the electrics because although the landlord acknowledged its failings:
1. there was a delay in completing the repair.
2. the financial redress was not proportionate to the failings identified.
3. the landlord did not respond appropriately to the resident’s concerns about the risk to her child.
In line with our remedies guidance, we have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £150 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by the failings identified. This is inclusive of the £80 already offered.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

The landlord’s complaints policy states it will respond at stage 1 of its complaints process within 10 working days and at stage 2 within 20 working days. The policy is compliant with the Code.
The resident raised a complaint on 1 December 2023. The landlord sent an acknowledgement on 4 December 2023 and responded on 11 December 2023. This was appropriate and in line with the timescales set out in its complaints policy.
The resident escalated her complaint on 13 April 2024. The landlord sent an acknowledgement on 16 April 2024 and agreed to respond by 13 May 2024. On 13 May 2024 the landlord contacted the resident to request an extension to 14 June 2024 as it was still investigating the matter. It was reasonable that the landlord acknowledged the complaint, informed the resident of the delay and issued a new completion date.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 26 June 2024. This was a delay of a further 8 working days. The landlord apologised and offered the resident £25 in recognition of the delays and for failing to meet the revised response time.
The landlord recognised its failings, apologised and offered proportionate redress for the delay. This was in keeping with this Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principle to put things right. The Ombudsman has found that there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling. Our determination of reasonable redress is made on the understanding that the compensation offered of £25 is paid to the resident, if it has not already been paid.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs to the bathroom and kitchen, including contractor conduct.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs to the windows.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs to 2 electrical sockets.
In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 28 days of the date of this determination, the landlord is ordered to:
1. provide a full apology to the resident for the errors identified in this report.
2. pay compensation to the resident of £800 broken down as follows:
  1. £450 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by the failures identified in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs to the bathroom and kitchen, including contractor conduct.
  2. £200 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by the failures identified in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs to her windows.
  3. £150 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by the failings identified in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs to 2 electrical sockets.
3. the landlord can deduct the £530 already offered to the resident, if it can evidence that it has already paid the resident this money.
4. contact the resident to arrange and undertake an inspection of the property to identify an action plan for any outstanding repairs. This must include specific reference to the reported window letting in a draught and repairs to the kitchen and bathroom. The landlord must provide the resident and this Service a copy of the action plan which must include timescales for any repairs identified.
The landlord must provide evidence of compliance with these orders within 28 days of the date of this determination.

Recommendation

It is recommended that the landlord reoffers the compensation of £25 for its complaint handling if this has not already been paid.