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

Westminster City Council (202109522)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202109522

Westminster City Council

9 September 2024


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 refusal to replace the front door of the property.

Background

  1. The resident is the leaseholder of the property. From 2007 until 16 November 2015, when he purchased the property, he was a tenant of the landlord. The property is a ground-floor 1-bedroom flat.
  2. At some point in 2009 the landlord replaced his front door. The resident advised us that he became aware the front door of the property did not comply with fire regulation standards on 26 February 2020 when a health and safety inspector advised him of this. He said that he complained to the landlord immediately after this visit and asked it to replace the door. The resident pursued his complaint informally with the landlord over the next year and referred it to the Ombudsman on 22 July 2021. On 26 July 2021 we advised him that he needed to raise a formal complaint with the landlord in order for us to consider his concerns.
  3. The resident continued to engage with the landlord about his complaint informally over the next year, until he raised a formal complaint on 9 June 2022. The landlord responded on 22 June 2022 and explained that the front door became his responsibility at the point of purchase as per his lease agreement. It explained that it was his responsibility to appoint a solicitor to advise him of the state of the property and his obligations before he completed the purchase. On this basis, it declined to replace or upgrade the door.
  4. Over the next year the resident continued to engage with the landlord informally, reiterating his position that it should replace his door. The landlord maintained the same position that it was not obligated to replace it. At some point between June 2022 and August 2023 he escalated his complaint to stage 2.
  5. The landlord provided a stage 2 response on 11 August 2023 and reiterated its stage 1 position. It also explained that his door had been inspected on 5 May 2023 and it was found to be a “notional fire door”. It explained that some upgrades and repairs were identified which would improve the safety of it, however, it reiterated that these modifications became his responsibility when he purchased the flat in 2015. It declined to replace or upgrade it on this basis.
  6. The resident was unhappy with this and asked the Ombudsman to investigate. He considers the landlord is obligated to replace the front door and wants us to order it to do so.

Jurisdiction

  1. The resident says he only became aware that the front door did not comply with fire safety regulations following the health and safety visit on 26 February 2020 and that he complained immediately after this. However, we have not seen evidence of a formal complaint until 9 June 2022.
  2. The lease agreement that the resident made when he purchased the property states that, from the point of purchase, the landlord was obligated “to keep in good and substantial condition and repair (and whenever necessary rebuild and reinstate and renew and replace all worn or damaged parts)…all doors therein save such doors as give access to individual flats.” This means the resident became solely responsible for any maintenance, repairs, or replacement of the front door from 16 November 2015.
  3. Under paragraph 42.c of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, we may not consider complaints which were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 6 months of the matters arising.
  4. We recognise the resident’s view that he was not aware of any reason to complain when he purchased the property. We also recognise he is very concerned that his front door poses a fire risk. However, the Ombudsman considers that he was responsible for ensuring that he fully understood the obligations set out in the lease agreement before he purchased the property. We also consider it was his responsibility to appoint a solicitor to survey the property and make himself fully aware of any potential issues. On this basis, we consider he should reasonably have made himself aware of the alleged issues with the front door at the time he was purchasing the property in 2015, and then complained to the landlord within 6 months of this.
  5. Even if we accept the resident’s view that he raised a complaint with the landlord in February 2020, this is still around 4 years later than he should reasonably have made himself aware of it and raised it. In the absence of any other evidence to persuade us to exercise our discretion and permit such a significant period of delay, the Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint as per paragraph 42.c.

Determination

  1. In line with paragraph 42.c of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the complaint about the landlord’s refusal to replace the front door of the property is not within our jurisdiction.