From 13 January 2026, we will no longer accept new cases by email. Please use our online webform to submit your complaint. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Call us on 0300 111 3000

City of Westminster Council (202423148)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202423148

Westminster City Council

22 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

  1. The complaint is about:
    1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a blocked toilet and waste back-surging into her bath.
    2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to move.
    3. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

  1. The resident has a secure tenancy agreement, which commenced in December 2010. The property is a 1-bedroom flat and has 1 toilet. There are no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident on the housing records.
  2. The resident told the landlord on 6 January 2023 that her toilet was blocked. The landlord raised an emergency repair on the same day and cleared the blockage. The resident reported further issues with the toilet blocking in February 2023 and March 2023. The landlord attended on each occasion and cleared the blockages. The resident told the landlord on 21 June 2023 that waste was coming up through the bath plughole and reported the toilet was blocked again on 27 September 2023.
  3. The resident made a complaint on 1 October 2023. She said her toilet frequently blocked and asked the landlord to carry out an investigation into the cause of the problem. She also noted the landlord’s emergency out of hours service failed to attend within agreed repair timescales.
  4. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on and said:
    1. The resident reported her toilet was blocked on 27 September 2023. A plumber attended on the following day and cleared the blockage and outlet pipe which was shared with the neighbouring flat. They also resecured the toilet to the floor.
    2. The resident contacted the landlord’s emergency out of hours service on 1 October 2023 and reported her toilet was blocked. A job was raised for a plumber to attend on the same day, but the visit did not take place.
    3. The toilet syphon, flush cone and seal were replaced on 2 October 2023, after it was noted there was a leak. The flush handle was also repaired and the toilet pan resecured to the floor.
    4. It would offer the resident £20 compensation for the missed appointment on 1 October 2023.
  5. The resident escalated her complaint on 7 June 2024. She said she had ongoing issues with her toilet which frequently blocked. She also noted there was waste coming up through the bath plughole. The resident asked the landlord to find a permanent solution to the problem rather than carry out temporary fixes.
  6. The landlord issued its final complaint response on 25 July 2024 and said:
    1. It had arranged for a CCTV survey to be completed given the resident had reported her toilet was blocked on 5 occasions in the last 12 months. Its contractor would contact the resident by 29 July 2024 to arrange an appointment to carry out the survey.
    2. It would monitor the situation and resolve the problem as swiftly as possible.
    3. It was sorry for the delay in responding to the resident’s complaint.
    4. It would offer the resident £30 compensation for the delay in carrying out the investigation into the drainage system, £50 for the delay in responding to her complaint and the £20 previously offered at stage 1 of its complaints process.
  7. The resident continued to report issues with her toilet blocking and human waste coming up through the plughole in July 2024. She made a further complaint on 30 August 2024 and said the landlord’s emergency out of hours team did not attend within the published repair timescales following her report that the toilet was blocked on 27 July 2024. She also said the landlord’s staff had failed to respond to her enquiries and she was not notified of the appointment booked for 7 August 2024. The resident noted the problem with the toilet and bath had not been resolved despite the landlord descaling the soil stack and cleaning the pipes.
  8. The landlord issued a further stage 1 complaint response on 10 September 2024 and said:
    1. Due to an influx of emergency repairs, there was a delay in its contractor attending on 27 July 2024.
    2. It was sorry the resident had not been notified about the appointment on 7 August 2024 and would remind staff of the need to do this when making appointments.
    3. It failed to provide the resident with updates. It had arranged for a surveyor to visit the resident on 13 September 2024 to carry out a property condition survey.
    4. It would offer the resident £100 for the identified service failures. This included £25 for failing to attend within published repair timescales, £50 for the delay in resolving the blockage to the toilet and £25 for the lack of communication.
  9. The resident escalated her complaint on 7 January 2025. She said the landlord had not taken her concerns seriously and the problems with the toilet and back-surge had not been resolved. She also noted the landlord’s contractor left her property in a poor condition after carrying out work. She said the situation was distressing and affecting her work and personal life.
  10. The landlord issued a further final complaint response on 18 February 2025 and said:
    1. It had arranged for a rodding eye to be installed on the communal toilet stack on 20 February 2025. This would provide the necessary access so any future blockages could be cleared.
    2. A CCTV survey would be carried out on 25 February 2025 to identify the root cause of the problem. Any follow up works would be scheduled in and the resident updated on the timeline for completing any identified works.
    3. It would address the resident’s concerns about the condition the property was left in with its contractor.
    4. It had identified a point of contact for the resident and would ensure she was kept updated.
    5. It would review its emergency out of hours service to improve its response times and the level of support offered to residents.
    6. The resident’s request to be rehoused would be reviewed in accordance with its housing priority criteria. It would provide her with an update once her case had been assessed.
    7. It would offer the resident £50 compensation for the poor communication, £50 for having to pursue her complaint further, £250 for the impact the situation had on her and £100 for the delay in carrying out the repairs.

Post complaint events.

  1. The landlord installed a rodding eye on the external soil stack on 20 February 2025.
  2. The resident told this Service that her toilet continues to block and the landlord has failed to identify the cause of the problem. She said she wanted a copy of the CCTV report and noted the landlord had refused her request to move as her property was deemed habitable.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation.

  1. It is noted that the resident said she had been reporting issues with her toilet since 2014. This Service encourages residents to raise complaints with their landlord in a timely manner. This is because with the passage of time, evidence may be unavailable and personnel involved may have left an organisation, which makes it difficult for a thorough investigation to be carried out and for informed decisions to be made.
  2. Taking account of the availability and reliability of evidence, it is considered fair and reasonable for this assessment to focus on the landlord’s handling of the events leading up to when the resident made a complaint in October 2023, up to February 2025, when the landlord issued its second final complaint response.

The landlord’s obligations, policies and procedures.

  1. The resident’s tenancy agreement says the landlord is responsible for keeping the structure of the building and fittings in good repair. This includes drains, pipes, baths and toilets
  2. The landlord’s repairs policy says it will take a ‘‘right first-time fix approach’’ when completing repairs. It also says it will keep residents updated throughout the duration of the repair. Repairs are prioritised into the following categories:
    1. Immediate repairs which pose a health and safety risk are made safe within 24 hours. The lack of toilet facilities (where there is only 1 toilet in the property) are considered immediate repairs.
    2. Urgent repairs are completed within 7 working days and include work which does not pose an immediate threat or safety risk.
    3. Non-urgent repairs are completed within 28 working days.
  3. The landlord’s allocations policy says it lets empty properties through a choice- based lettings (CBL) scheme, with priority given to residents identified as being in the greatest housing need. Council tenants who do not fall into a priority group are not registered for rehousing but offered advice and information on other housing options that may be available. Residents can also apply for a mutual exchange or seek a move under the landlord’s management transfer process if they are at risk of harm from violence, harassment or abuse.
  4. The landlord’s complaints policy comprises of 2 stages. Complaints are acknowledged within 2 working days and a reply at stage 1 issued within 10 working days. The landlord responds to escalations at stage 2 within 20 working days. If more time is needed, the landlord says it will contact the resident to advise them.
  5. The landlord’s compensation policy sets out the circumstances when it will offer compensation to a resident. Compensation is considered when the landlord fails to attend an appointment, complete repairs on time and when it takes an unreasonable time to resolve an issue. The landlord offers £20 compensation for missed appointments. Awards up to £1,000 are made where there has been a service failure that has had a significant impact on a resident. This includes service failures which have gone on for a long period of time and there has been a lack of action to address this issue.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a blocked toilet and waste back– surging into her bath.

  1. The housing records confirm the resident told the landlord her toilet was blocked on 6 January 2023. The landlord raised an emergency repair and cleared the blockage on the same day. This was consistent with the landlord’s repairs policy.
  2. The resident reported further problems with the toilet blocking on a number of occasions in February 2023 and March 2023. Whilst the landlord raised an emergency repair on each occasion and cleared the blockages, there is no evidence it sought to investigate the underlying reason why the toilet kept blocking. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have done this given the ongoing problems with the toilet. This was a failure and caused the resident inconvenience, time and trouble having to report the same issue to the landlord.
  3. The resident told the landlord on 21 June 2023 that there was waste coming up through the bath plughole. The landlord visited the resident’s home on 22 June 2023 in accordance with the timescales set out in its repairs policy. It said the pipework was connected to the neighbouring flat, but it was unable to get access to the property. It is unclear from the housing records if any further action was taken by the landlord to resolve the problem. This demonstrated poor record keeping on the part of the landlord and meant the resident was unclear on what steps the landlord was taking to address her concerns.
  4. The resident told the landlord her toilet was blocked again on 27 September 2023. The landlord attended on 28 September 2023 and cleared the blockage. Whilst it was noted there had been multiple visits to the property and it was recommended the pipework was checked, there is no evidence the landlord acted on this information. This Service would have expected the landlord to have investigated the matter further and identified a solution to resolve the problem. The landlord’s failure to do this meant it did not meet its obligations under the resident’s tenancy agreement.
  5. The resident reported her toilet was blocked again on 1 October 2023. She made a complaint on the same day and said the landlord had failed to respond within its published repair timescales. She asked the landlord to carry out an investigation into the reason why the problem kept occurring. The toilet was unblocked on 2 October 2023 and the syphon, flush cone, rubber seal and flush handle replaced after it was identified there was a leak.
  6. The landlord acknowledged on 16 October 2023 in its stage 1 complaint response that it did not respond to the resident’s reports of a blocked toilet on 1 October 2023 in accordance with its published repair timescales.
  7. When considering how a landlord has responded to a complaint, this Service considers not just what has gone wrong, but also what the landlord has done to put things right in response to the complaint. This includes the steps the landlord has taken to address the shortcoming and prevent a reoccurrence, as well as any compensation offered.
  8. In this case, the landlord offered the resident £20 compensation for the missed appointment. Whilst this was in accordance with its compensation policy, it did not undertake a meaningful investigation into the resident’s reports that her toilet frequently blocked. Neither did it respond to her request for an investigation to be undertaken to identify the underlying cause of the problem. This was a failure and meant the resident was unclear on what steps were being taken by the landlord.
  9. The landlord also failed to identify any learning from the complaint. This Service’s dispute resolution principles encourage landlords to learn from outcomes in order to improve its wider service delivery.
  10. The resident reported her toilet was blocked again on 7 June 2024. An emergency repair was raised on the same day and the toilet was cleared, but again, the landlord failed to identify the cause of the blockage. This caused the resident inconvenience, time and trouble and led to her escalating her complaint. She said the landlord needed to identify the cause of the blockages rather than carry out temporary fixes.
  11. The landlord arranged for a CCTV survey to be carried out on 12 July 2024. Whilst this demonstrated the landlord wanted to put things right for the resident, the delay in arranging the survey was unreasonable given it was not ordered until 18 months after she first reported issues with the toilet.
  12. The landlord issued its final complaint response on 25 July 2024. It noted the toilet had been blocked on 5 occasions in the last 12 months and it had arranged for a CCTV survey of the drainage system to be completed. It said this would be carried out by 29 July 2024.
  13. Whilst this provided clarity and ensured the landlord managed the resident’s expectations, it again failed to identify any learning from the complaint. The landlord offered the resident £50 compensation. This included £30 for the delay in carrying out the investigation into the drainage issue and the £20 that was previously offered for the missed appointment. The landlord’s increased offer of compensation cannot be considered reasonable in the circumstances given the inconvenience, time and trouble that was experienced by the resident.
  14. The resident reported a further blockage on 27 July 2024. The landlord’s contractor confirmed on 30 July 2024 that it had completed a CCTV survey of the soil stack, although a copy of the report was not shared with this Service. It was recommended that the flexi bath waste pipe was renewed and the pipework was descaled. The pipework and soil stack were descaled on 7 August 2024.
  15. The resident made a further complaint on 30 August 2024. She said the landlord’s contractor did not attend within the published repair timescales on 27 July 2024. She also noted she was not notified of the appointment on 7 August 2024 and the landlord staff failed to respond to her enquiries. She also said the problems with the toilet and waste back–surge had not been resolved.
  16. The landlord issued a further stage 1 complaint response on 10 September 2024. It apologised for the delay in attending on 27 July 2024 and for failing to notify the resident of the appointment on 7 August 2024. It also acknowledged its communication had been poor and arranged for a surveyor to visit the resident’s home on 13 September 2024 to complete a property condition survey. This demonstrated the landlord took learning from the complaint. The landlord also offered the resident £100 compensation. This included £25 for failing to attend within its published repair timescales, £50 for the delay in resolving the blockage to the toilet and £25 for the lack of communication.
  17. A further CCTV survey was requested on 10 September 2024, although it is not clear from the housing records whether it was carried out or what information was shared with the resident.
  18. The housing records confirm the landlord raised a job on 26 September 2024 to separate the bath pipework that was connected between the 2 properties and to renew the waste pipe to the soil stack. It is unclear from the housing records whether the surveyor visited the resident’s home on 27 September 2024.
  19. The landlord replaced the bath pipework and raised the toilet onto a plinth in October 2024, although it later noted that this had not resolved the problem with back–surges. It said this was because it was unable to separate the shared toilet pipework due to space restrictions. It arranged for a non-return valve to be fitted to the bath waste pipe on 16 October 2024, although it is unclear from the housing records if and when this work was carried out. An update was provided to the resident on 21 October 2024.
  20. The resident continued to report problems with waste back–surging into her bath and the toilet blocking in December 2024 and January 2025. She said she was unable to control the water and it was flooding onto the bathroom floor. She told the landlord on 8 January 2025 that the toilet leaked underneath the plinth that had been installed. Whilst the landlord responded on each occasion in accordance with its repairs policy, it failed to identify the cause of the problem and continued to take a reactive approach. This caused the resident further inconvenience, time and trouble.
  21. The landlord arranged for a further CCTV survey to be completed on 13 January 2025. It is unclear from the housing records whether the appointment took place or what the outcome of the survey was. A further CCTV survey was arranged on 12 February 2025. The landlord said it had previously attempted to carry out CCTV surveys but it had not been possible for the camera to access the soil stack given there was a ‘‘T junction’’ in the pipework between the 2 properties. There is no evidence the landlord provided the resident with an update. This demonstrated poor communication on the part of the landlord.
  22. The landlord arranged for a rodding eye to be installed into the external toilet soil stack in February 2025. It said this was required as the CCTV camera could not access the soil stack via the resident’s toilet. The landlord’s actions were reasonable in the circumstances and demonstrated it wanted to put things right for the resident.
  23. The resident told the landlord on 15 February 2025 that she had not been notified about the appointments to install the rodding eye into the soil stack or carryout a further CCTV survey. She also noted her property was left in a poor condition by the contractors and she had not been provided with an update, despite asking for one.
  24. The landlord issued a further final complaint response on 18 February 2025. It said the rodding eye would be installed on 20 February 2025 and a CCTV survey carried out on 25 February 2025. This provided clarity. It also said it would discuss the resident’s concerns about the condition the property was left in with its contractor and offered the resident a point of contact, with the view to improving communication. The landlord’s actions were reasonable in the circumstances. The landlord offered the resident £50 compensation for the poor communication, £250 for the impact the situation had on her and £100 for the delay in carrying out the repairs.
  25. In summary, the landlord failed to adequately investigate the reason why the toilet kept blocking and waste back–surged into the resident’s bath within a reasonable timescale. Its communication with the resident was also poor at times. The situation caused the resident distress and inconvenience. She also spent significant time and trouble in pursuing the landlord about the repairs.
  26. In total, the landlord offered the resident £550 compensation for this element of her complaint in its complaint responses. The landlord’s offer of compensation cannot be considered reasonable given the inconvenience, time and trouble caused to the resident and the issue with the toilet and back-surge remains unresolved. In this case, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of a blocked toilet and waste coming up through the bath plughole, for which it is ordered to pay an additional £250 compensation.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to move.

  1. It is not this Service’s role to determine whether a resident should be rehoused. We have, however, investigated the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for rehousing and whether it acted fairly, reasonably and in line with its policies and procedures.
  2. A councillor contacted the landlord on behalf of the resident on 26 September 2024 and said she wanted to be rehoused urgently given the condition of her property. There is no evidence the landlord responded to the councillor or her subsequent email of 22 January 2025. This was a failure and meant the resident was not clear on what she needed to do and led to her chasing up the landlord on 15 February 2025. She said the property was affecting her mental health and she needed to move.
  3. The landlord confirmed in its final complaint response on 18 February 2025 that the resident’s request to be rehoused would be reviewed in accordance with its housing priority criteria. It said it would provide her with an update once her case had been assessed. Whilst this was consistent with the landlord’s allocations policy, the advice was confusing given it was aware the resident had not submitted a rehousing application form at this point.
  4. In summary, the landlord did not respond to the resident’s initial request to be rehoused. When it did respond, the advice that was offered was confusing given the resident had not submitted a rehousing application form and the landlord was, therefore, not able to carry out an assessment. The situation caused the resident inconvenience. In this case, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s request to move, for which it is ordered to pay £50 compensation.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

  1. The resident made a complaint on 1 October 2023. There is no evidence the landlord acknowledged the complaint. This was not in accordance with the landlord’s complaints policy or the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaints Handling Code (the Code) and meant the resident was not clear when she would receive a response.
  2. There is no evidence the landlord sought to understand the resident’s complaint or the outcomes she was seeking prior to issuing its stage 1 complaint response. This was not in accordance with the Code.
  3. The landlord issued it stage 1 complaint response on 16 October 2023. This was 1 working day after the target deadline date and was not consistent with the landlord’s complaints policy.
  4. The resident escalated her complaint on 7 June 2024. The complaint escalation request was not acknowledged by the landlord.
  5. The landlord issued its final complaint response on 25 July 2024. This was 14 working days after the target deadline date. The landlord apologised for the delay and offered the resident £50 compensation. The landlord’s actions were reasonable in the circumstances and in accordance with its compensation policy.
  6. The resident made a further complaint on 30 August 2024. There is no evidence the complaint was acknowledged. The landlord confirmed the nature of the resident’s complaint and the outcomes she was seeking on 6 September 2024. This was appropriate.
  7. The landlord issued a further stage 1 complaint response on 10 September 2024. This was consistent with the landlord’s complaints policy.
  8. The resident escalated her complaint on 7 January 2025. The complaint escalation request was not acknowledged. The landlord did, however, speak to the resident on 9 January 2025 and discussed her complaint with her. This was consistent with the Code.
  9. The landlord issued a further final complaint response on 18 February 2025. This was 10 working days after the target deadline date. The landlord apologised for the delay and offered £50 compensation. The landlord’s actions were reasonable in the circumstances.
  10. In summary, the landlord did not follow its complaints policy at times and there were delays in issuing its complaint responses. It did, however, offer an apology for the delays and compensation. In this case, there was reasonable redress by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of a blocked toilet and waste back–surging into her bath.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s request to move.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 53c of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to apologise to the resident for the failings set out in this report. A copy of the apology letter must be shared with this Service.
  2. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £950 compensation. This must be paid directly to the resident and made up as follows:
    1. £250 compensation for the inconvenience, time and trouble caused to the resident by its handling of her reports of a blocked and waste back-surging into her bath.
    2. £50 compensation for the inconvenience caused to the resident by its handling of her request to move.
    3. £650 previously offered to the resident, if not already paid.
  3. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to contact the resident and confirm if there is any outstanding work required. If further work is required, the landlord must agree these in writing and provide the resident and this Service with a copy of the action plan, including timescales for completing the repairs.
  4. Within 8 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to conduct a review of this case and identify learning opportunities. The review must include an assessment of its approach to reports of blocked toilets and its communications standards. A copy of the review outcome must be shared with the resident and this Service.