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

City of Westminster Council (202437939)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202437939

City of Westminster Council

31 July 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 a leak and the associated repairs.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, which is a local authority. The property is a 3 bedroom flat and the tenancy began in July 2022. The landlord has not noted any vulnerabilities for the resident.
  2. On 4 March 2024, the resident reported a leak in the property which was worse when it rained. The leak appeared to be coming from the property above. The landlord raised a repair on 6 March 2024, the landlord’s records suggest that the repair was passed to a sub-contractor on 14 March 2024.
  3. The landlord’s records show it attended on 15 April 2024 and 19 April 2024, but the resident did not grant access. The landlord was able to inspect the property above and carry out repairs which appeared to resolve the issue at the time. 
  4. On 30 April 2024, the landlord carried out an inspection of the resident’s property to identify the severity of the works required to resolve the damage from the leak. The landlord decided to make a claim on its insurance for the remedial works. On 16 May 2024, the landlord initiated its insurance claim.
  5. On 10 July 2024, the resident expressed dissatisfaction that the leak had caused damage to her property which had not been resolved. The resident explained that the water had seeped through the walls and caused dampness which could lead to mould.
  6. On 15 July 2024, the landlord told the resident that the damage from the leak had been raised with its insurance and that landlord’s insurers would contact the resident to arrange a survey.
  7. On 24 September 2024, a repair was raised for a further leak in the property, which may have been coming from the property above. On 26 September 2024 the landlord attended the upstairs property to identify the source of the leak. On 10 October 2024, a further repair was raised to trace and remedy the leak. The landlord’s records suggest it attended on 17, 18, and 25 October 2024 but there was no access available.
  8. The resident complained to the landlord on 18 October 2024. She expressed frustration that the leak was causing damage to her walls and ceiling. On 28 October 2024, the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response. It accepted that some of the repair appointments had been attended outside of its advertised timeframes and it apologised. It outlined that there had been some missed appointments because the resident had not granted access to the property, the landlord stated it would monitor the progress of the works to ensure it was complete. It offered the resident £70 for the delay in completing the repair and the inconvenience caused, and £20 for not attending within its timeframe. 
  9. The resident made her stage 2 complaint on 31 October 2024, she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of the leak and the damage caused to her property. The resident asked for a clear action plan and timeline for the repairs.
  10. On 2 December 2024 the landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response. It advised a surveyor would visit the resident the next day to assess the cause of the leak. It offered the resident compensation of £190 comprised of:
    1. £50.00 for the time and trouble spent pursuing the matter.
    2. £50.00 for the impact on the resident.
    3. £70.00 as offered in the Stage 1 response for the delays in carrying out the repairs and the inconvenience caused as a result.
    4. £20.00 as offered in the Stage 1 response for not attending within its agreed timeframe.

Events post complaint

  1. The landlord’s insurer conducted a moisture survey on 18 March 2025 and found that the leak had stopped and the redecoration could resume.
  2. On 23 July 2025, the resident confirmed to us that the leak was repaired and the remedial works were completed. The landlord’s records show that this work was completed by the landlord’s insurer on 15 April 2025.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. When the resident asked us to investigate her complaint, she raised a concern that the landlord’s handling of the leak reported had impacted on her health. This aspect of the resident’s complaint ultimately requires a determination of liability for personal injury. Claims of personal injury, including damage to health, can be considered via a landlord’s public liability insurance or in a court of law. Such claims will take into consideration medical evidence and allegations of negligence. These matters fall outside of our remit. The resident may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim, if she considers that her health has been affected by any action or lack thereof by the landlord.
  2. The resident has also raised other concerns, including about her toilet and her front door. We are unable to investigate matters which have not been through the landlord’s complaints process. Our role is to assess the landlord’s handling of the issues raised by the resident, and this includes an assessment of their final response. This report will focus on the resident’s complaint about the leak and the associated repairs, because this is what the landlord has responded to in its complaint response.
  3. The landlord made an insurance claim for the remedial works that needed to be completed following the leak. We can only investigate the actions of a member landlord or those acting on its behalf. We cannot assess the actions of the insurer or the insurer’s contractors because the insurer is not a member of this Scheme. This report will focus on the actions of the landlord and its own contractors only.

The leak and associated repairs

  1. The landlord’s Repairs Policy states that a leak from a roof will be attended to within 7 working days, a leak from a water pipe, tank, or cistern will be attended to within 1 working day. The policy states that routine repairs are defined as works that pose no threat to the resident, it will aim to complete these works within 28 working days.
  2. The resident reported a leak on 4 March 2024, it was recorded that the leak was likely to be coming from the flat above. It is unclear how much information the landlord had to at the time in order to categorise the repair. Its repair policy relies on the landlord knowing the cause of the leak in order to correctly categorise it. The landlord’s records show that the work was initially raised with a contractor on 6 March 2024, and then reraised with a different contractor on 14 March 2024, there is no record of the landlord attending at this time. The records show that the resident reported the leak again on 31 March 2024.
  3. The landlord’s records show it attended on 15 and 19 April 2024 but there was no access to the resident’s property. The landlord’s attendance on 15 April 2024 was 29 working days after the leak was reported which was 1 day outside of the timeframe for a routine repair, this was a shortcoming. The landlord did gain access to the upstairs property and was able to inspect and repair a pipe which appeared to resolve the leak at the time. The landlord’s internal correspondence shows that the landlord did try to move these appointments but the contractor was not available on an earlier date.
  4. While a fundamental part of our role to consider whether a landlord has acted appropriately in response to a repair request, this will often require an assessment of how the resident’s own actions may have contributed to the situation. Rather than showing bias in favour of the landlord, this is an example of our independent and impartial role in practice, as we consider the conduct of both parties equally.
  5. Repairs often require the cooperation of residents to facilitate appointments and ensure the landlord has access to the property. While we do not question the resident’s reasons for not allowing access, any delays which occurred solely because of the resident declining or missing appointments are beyond the control of the landlord.
  6. The landlord carried out an inspection of the property on 30 April 2024. It noted that the flooring had swollen due to the leak and it would need to repair and make good the area, it assigned the repair as “Cat 4 – 22 working days.” The landlord’s internal correspondence shows that it felt the work required was “quite extensive” and that it was best to initiate an insurance claim for the repairs. The insurance claim was initiated on 16 May 2024 and it was noted that the insurer’s contractor would complete the remedial work rather than the landlord.
  7. It is unclear from the evidence provided when the resident was informed that the matter had been passed to the landlord’s insurance. We would expect to see evidence that the resident was provided with timely and detailed updates, to manage her expectations and provide assurances that the matter was being taken seriously. We can see that the landlord sought updates from the insurer and encouraged it to complete the work as soon as possible, which was appropriate.
  8. On or around 24 September 2024, a further leak was identified in the property but it was unclear at the time where the leak was originating from. The insurer placed its works on hold until the second leak was resolved. The landlord tried to attend on 26 September 2024 but could not gain access to the resident’s property, it was able to access the upstairs property and identified a leak from a waste pipe which may have caused the leak in the resident’s property. 
  9. The landlords records showed it attended on 17, 18, and twice on 25 October 2024 to inspect the resident’s property but access was not granted, this was outside of the landlord’s control. The records show that the job was closed because there had been 3 missed appointments. Given that the remedial works could not be completed until the leak was resolved, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to evidence it had continued to take steps to arrange the inspection. For example the landlord could have reminded the resident of her obligation to allow access for repairs or discussed with the resident if there were any barriers to her allowing access.
  10. It is unclear when the second leak was resolved and there is no record of any further appointments after October 2024. The landlord’s records state it “cannot tell” when the leak was repaired, however the evidence suggests the insurer was told the leak had been stopped by March 2025. This is significantly outside of the landlord’s timeframes for a leak repair. Additionally, this caused delays in the insurer completing the remedial work and inconvenience to the resident who was distressed at the condition of her property.
  11. While not meeting a policy timeframe is not necessarily a failing in itself, we would expect to see evidence that the resident was being kept up to date with the progress of the repair and the reasons for any delays. We understand that some repairs can require several visits, for example where the cause of a leak is not obvious, the landlord is expected to manage the resident’s expectations and provide assurances that it is taking the repair seriously. This has not been the resident’s experience in this case. The lack of updates and action ultimately led to the resident making her complaint.
  12. In the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response, it acknowledged that its attendance in October 2024 was outside of its policy timeframes and apologised. It referenced the fact the resident had not granted access as the reason the repair had not been completed but stated it would monitor the progress of the repair to ensure it was completed. It did not provide any timeframes for the work to be completed, the resident stated she was frustrated that there was not a clear action plan or timeline for the repair. This led to the resident making her stage 2 complaint.
  13. By the time of the landlord’s stage 2 response, the leak had not been repaired. In its response, it advised its Surveyor would be attending the next day to assess the leak. It did not provide any further guidance on when the resident could expect the leak to be resolved, there is no evidence that the landlord followed up with the resident following the surveyor’s visit.
  14. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak and the associated repairs amounts to maladministration. This is because:
    1. The landlord did not initially attend or complete the second leak repair within a reasonable time frame.
    2. It was not proactive in arranging further appointments after it could not gain access.
    3. The delay had a knock on effect because it meant the insurer could not repair the damage caused to the property.
    4. The landlord did not keep the resident up to date on the progress of the matter.
    5. There was evident distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the leak and delays.
  15. The landlord was candid in its final response and set out that it was sorry that it had not adequately addressed the resident’s concerns. It recognised that the resident “should not have had to pursue this further” and stated it was “disappointed that [it] did not deliver a service to the standard [it] would expect.” While we appreciate the landlord’s openness, it is disappointing that it did not learn from its mistakes and repair the leak within a timely manner after its complaint response.
  16. The landlord offered the resident compensation of £190. In our opinion, this does not go far enough to recognise and redress the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. The landlord must pay the resident £400 compensation in light of the failures noted in this report. This award is in line with our remedies guidance where there was an adverse impact on the resident, and where a landlord has taken some steps to put things right, but the offer is not proportional to the issues raised. 
  17. We expect a landlord to keep a robust record of contacts and repairs, yet the evidence has not been comprehensive in this case. It is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail. If we investigate a complaint, we will ask for the landlord’s records. If there is disputed evidence and no audit trail, we may not be able to conclude that an action took place or that the landlord followed its own policies and procedures.
  18. We encourage landlords to consider the Ombudsman’s Spotlight reports following publication. In May 2023 we published our Spotlight on Knowledge and Information Management (KIM). A recommendation has been made below for the landlord to consider the findings and recommendations of our Spotlight report, if it has not already done so.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak and the associated repairs.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks, the landlord must provide evidence to us that it has:
    1. Apologised to the resident in writing for the failures noted in this determination.
    2. Paid the resident a total compensation of £400 to acknowledge and redress the failures identified in relation to the leak, and the associated repairs.
      1. The landlord’s previous offer of £190 can be deducted from this amount, if already paid.
      2. This amount should be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any rent or debt owed.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should consider the Ombudsman’s Spotlight on Knowledge and Information Management (KIM) report, if it has not already done so.