28 November 2024

 

Complaint reference:

23 001 002

202431101

 

Complaint against:

Westminster Council

 

The Ombudsmen’s draft decision

Summary: Subject to further comment by Mr X and the Council, we intend to complete our investigation. There was fault in the Council’s handling of Mr X’s concerns about the maintenance of the lift and windows in a block of flats, concerns about a conflict of interest and Mr X’s complaints. There was no fault in how the Council decided not to recognise a Residents Association and consulted with Mr X and other residents about its plans for the block of flats. The Council should apologise, make a payment to Mr X, and take action to improve its service.

 

The complaint

The Ombudsmen’s role and powers

1.        The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) investigates complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, we have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. We refer to this as ‘injustice’. Injustice may include distress, inconvenience or being put to avoidable time and trouble. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)

2.        The LGSCO considers whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

3.        The LGSCO investigates complaints about councils and certain other bodies. Where an individual, organisation or private company is providing services on behalf of a council, we can investigate complaints about the actions of these providers. (Local Government Act 1974, section 25(7), as amended)

4.        The Housing Ombudsman Service (HOS) 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 HOS considers the evidence and establishes if there has been any ‘maladministration’, including circumstances where a landlord behaved unreasonably, treated the complainant in an inappropriate manner of failed to comply with its obligations. (Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme)

5.        The HOS Dispute Resolution Principles are ‘be fair’, ‘put things right’ and ‘learn from outcomes’ – we will apply these principles when considering whether any redress is appropriate and proportionate for any maladministration or service failure identified.

6.        When considering complaints, if there is a conflict of evidence, we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we will weigh up the available relevant evidence and base our findings on what we think was more likely to have happened.

7.        If the LGSCO is satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

8.        Following an investigation, the HOS may order a member landlord to take steps to put things right. (Paragraphs 54-55 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme)

Scope of our investigation

9.        We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended and Paragraph 42 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme)

What I have and have not investigated

How we considered this complaint

10.        @’s complaint covers matters that fall into the jurisdiction of both the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) and the Housing Ombudsman Service (HOS).

11.        Each Ombudsman has therefore investigated the parts of the complaint which are within its jurisdiction and jointly considered the parts of the complaint that fell within both jurisdictions. This decision statement covers both investigations.

What we found

12.        Mr X lives in a block of flats. The Council owns the freehold and Mr X has a long lease dated 8 July 2016. The rest of the block contains other residents on long leases, secure tenants of the Council, and tenants who rent from private landlords. There are also businesses which operate from the lower floors of the block. There are two lifts to the block – one is primarily for residents and the other is primarily for commercial purposes.

Maintenance

13.        Mr X told us about repeated problems of disrepair in the block, especially to the lifts and windows. In response to enquiries, the Council accepted that a previous managing agent for the block had not kept the property in a suitable state of repair. Although it does not have any repair records for the period this managing agent was in place, the Council accepts that a lift was “out of action” for long periods in 2016 and that further repairs were undertaken in April 2017, August 2017, November 2017, July 2018, January 2019 and April-May 2019.

Complaint handling

14.        Mr X complained to the Council in December 2019. The Council did not respond to this complaint until April 2020. The Council’s complaint policy says it will respond within 10 working days. The delay of four months was fault.

15.        Although the Council apologised for the delay, we do not consider this to be a suitable remedy for the injustice caused. Mr X told the Council it had directed his complaint to the wrong department more than once between December 2019 and early February 2020. The Council assured him it had sent the complaint to the right department only to then acknowledge in February that it had not. This caused Mr X avoidable frustration and time and trouble and undermined his confidence in the Council’s complaint process.

16.        The Council delayed responding to Mr X’s stage two complaint by two weeks. This was fault and avoidably added to his frustration.

17.        Similarly, there was a short delay before the Council responded to Mr X’s stage one complaint in February 2021.

18.        Mr X asked the Council to consider this complaint at stage two in May 2021. The Council did not respond until October. This delay of four months was fault. However, we note that the Council kept Mr X informed of the delay, which limits the injustice caused by this further fault.

 

Conclusion

19.        In accordance with paragraph 52 of its Scheme, the HOS found:

•       maladministration in the landlord’s handling of Mr X’s concerns about block maintenance, a conflict of interest and the related complaint handling;

•       no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the decision about the resident association.

20.        LGSCO found fault with:

•       how the Council communicated with Mr X about his concerns about conflict of interest; and

•       the Council’s complaint handling.

21.        These faults caused Mr X avoidable frustration, which is an injustice.

22.        LGSCO did not find fault with how the Council consulted with Mr X about its plans for the block.

Action required

HOS orders

23.        The Housing Ombudsman therefore orders that within two weeks of our final decision, the Council should:

•       Write to Mr X to provide a breakdown to him of the charges that it has decided not to pass on to leaseholders in respect of lift repairs

•       Advise him of any lift and window repair charges that have been passed on to leaseholders and why it has decided that these were reasonable

•       Update him on when it will complete the window repair and renewal works proposed in its final complaint response (if these remain outstanding)

•       Pay Mr X £250 in recognition of the distress and time and trouble caused to Mr X by the service failures identified in its handling of concerns about the maintenance of the block lift and windows

24.        The Council should create an action plan within eight weeks of the final decision to demonstrate how it will ensure that clear and accurate records are maintained for communal repairs at all blocks where a managing agent is involved with its operations.

LGSCO recommended action

25.        To remedy the injustice to Mr X from the faults we have identified, the Council should:

•       Write to Mr X to apologise for the faults identified by both Ombudsmen and explain clearly how it will ensure that officers responsible for block maintenance and block redevelopment have a clear separation of duties.

•       Pay Mr X £150 in recognition of the avoidable distress and frustration caused by the failure to explain the division of responsibility between maintenance and redevelopment in a meaningful way

•       Pay Mr X £250 in recognition of the avoidable time and trouble and distress caused by the Council’s complaint handling

26.        The Council should take this action within two weeks of the final decision.

27.        The Council should also take the following action to improve its services:

•       Share a copy of this decision with relevant staff to identify any learning from this complaint.

•       Remind relevant staff that written responses to complaints should be in plain English and any jargon or language specific to the Council avoided or explained.

28.        The Council should tell the Ombudsmen about the action it has taken within eight weeks of our final decision.