Westminster City Council (202217180)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202217180

Westminster City Council

19 May 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about repair issues caused by damp.
The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s complaints handling.

Background

The resident has been a secure tenant at the property of the landlord since December 2018. The landlord is a local authority.
The property is a basement flat. The building uses a ‘sump pump’ to clear any rainwater that enters the basement level. Throughout the period of the complaint, the sump pump was connected to the resident’s electricity supply. The resident has exclusive access to a ‘vault’ area, which includes storage and a bin room, which is also at basement level.
In or around April 2021, the resident reported that the walls in the vault area under her stairs were damaged by damp. The landlord’s repair records show that its surveyor attended the property on 27 April 2021, and subsequently completed repair works on 25 May 2021. The works were described in the repair records as replastering works, and it is not evident what inspections were completed to determine the cause of the damp, if any.
The landlord has acknowledged that at this time the resident requested for it to complete redecoration works to the affected areas, but that this was not done, nor were any follow up inspections carried out.
On 18 February 2022, the resident reported that the issue had returned and that the bin room was experiencing a leak through the light fitting. The landlord’s surveyor subsequently carried out a further inspection on 25 February 2022. The surveyor recommended that waterproofing works were required to solve the damp issue. This inspection was not included in the landlord’s repair records.
On 25 February 2022, the resident noted that there was additional damage to the bin room, such as the ironworks falling off due to the crumbling plaster, and that the lock was broken. She also raised concerns that the pump system had not been recently serviced.
Around this time, the resident raised a formal complaint. The landlord provided its stage one response on 11 March 2022, which included the following:
1. It set out the history of the complaint and noted its surveyor’s recommendations.
2. It advised that it was liaising with its “waterproofing warrantors” to understand the issue further and that it would subsequently raise the relevant works to remedy the issue. It advised that it would keep her informed of the next steps. It also advised that it would assess what works were required to make good any damage.
3. It noted that the resident had also recently reported a leak in her bin room. It advised that its contractors had attended on 7 March 2022, and had rectified the leak and made safe the lights impacted by the leak. The Ombudsman notes that these works are not included on the landlord’s repair records.
4. It concluded its response by apologising for the delay in receiving the necessary information regarding the ongoing damp that it required to raise works.
5. The response did not specifically address the ironworks, lock, or pump service.
On 5 April 2022, the resident escalated her complaint. She advised that she was also concerned about damp in her bathroom and noted that she had raised this in 2021 but that no action had been taken. She also advised that she had previously reported the iron work issues in November 2021 but that no repair was actioned. Similarly, she advised that she had reported issues with the lock in 2020 but that no works took place.
The landlord provided its stage two response on 11 July 2022, which included the following:
1. Regarding corrosion to the vault walls, the landlord advised that this was caused by exposure to the elements and, as such, required routine maintenance. It advised that the areas had now been repaired and repainted. It apologised for the delays in completing these works. The Ombudsman notes that these works were not noted on the landlord’s repair records.
2. Regarding a leak coming through the light fitting in the bin room, the landlord noted that, as the room was not meant for habitation, it did not have waterproofing. However, to prevent the issue from happening again, it advised that it was arranging for the light to be relocated and fitted with a watertight seal.
3. Regarding its failure to redecorate following the works in 2021, the landlord apologised that this had not taken place. It noted that redecoration works had now been completed.
4. The landlord noted that the resident had raised concerns about the damp in her bathroom, the ironworks, the lock, and the service of the pump. It advised that, as these issues had not been addressed in its stage one response, it would not comment on them. However, it advised that it had arranged for its surveyor to inspect these issues.
5. It noted that its stage two response had been delayed and offered £20 compensation.
Following the stage two response, the resident chased updates in August, September, and October 2022; however, it is not evident she received a response. She subsequently referred her complaint to this service.
In or around January 2023, the resident reported that she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response. She noted that the redecoration works were of a poor standard and that the exhaust flume for the pump had not been put back properly. This caused fumes to enter her property. She also reported her dissatisfaction with the length of time works were taking and that the contractors had not cleaned up after the works.
It is evident that the landlord’s surveyor attended on 23 January 2023, and identified works to re-render the walls, redecorate, repair the ironworks and lock, and clean the area. Regarding the damp in the resident’s bathroom, the surveyor also identified works to remove the shower screen. The resident noted on 21 March 2023, that the works were due to have commenced on 1 March 2023, but that they had not, nor had she been given any updates.
Around this time, the landlord advised that it would review its stage two response and make an offer of compensation for the delays once the works had been completed. It repeated this commitment several times.
The landlord also committed to providing an update every two weeks. The Ombudsman notes that while the landlord continued to communicate with the resident regarding the issues, it did not provide updates every two weeks. Instead, the resident often had to chase updates several times before she received a response. When it did respond, the landlord often apologised for its communication and explained the delays were due to staff absences.
It is evident that some works occurred in early 2023, but that on 6 June 2023, the resident reported that no cleaning had taken place and that the bathroom remained an issue. The landlord’s surveyor provided a report on 14 June 2023, which found high moisture in the bathroom and recommended extensive works necessary for a further inspection. The landlord discussed these works internally throughout July 2023. In August 2023, it noted that the works had been arranged for October 2023 and would require the resident to be decanted.
It is evident that the resident was decanted in October 2023, but that she experienced a number of issues with the decant property. She reported these to the landlord at the time; however, it is not evident that any formal complaint was opened.
The resident also raised concerns that the sump pump was connected to her electricity account but that the whole building benefited from its use. On 22 December 2023, the landlord advised that it intended to move the sump pump over to its electricity account and that it would provide compensation relating to the running costs once this was completed.
In January 2024, the resident reported that the issues with damp were ongoing and the plaster in the bin room was beginning to crumble again. She continued to chase updates for the outstanding works throughout early 2024.
As of May 2024, the resident has advised this service that the sump pump account has still not been transferred, the issues with damp and the related repairs are ongoing, and that no compensation has been offered by the landlord.

Assessment and findings

Policies and procedures

The landlord’s ‘tenant’s handbook’ notes that it is responsible for the structure of the building and for any equipment it has installed to deliver the services for which it provides. The handbook does not note the timeframe for completing non-urgent repairs, such as plastering work.
The handbook notes that a resolution to a formal complaint will be offered within seven working days. If the complaint is escalated, a further response will be provided within 10 working days.
The landlord’s compensation policy notes that it may offer up to £250 for low impact service failures. It may also offer £20 for a letter that was not responded to.

Damp works

As noted above, the landlord’s policy does not provide a specific timeframe for non-urgent repair works. However, any such works must nevertheless be completed within a reasonable timeframe. The Ombudsman would also expect a landlord to provide reasonable communication about any inspections, outcomes, and subsequent works.
In this case, it is evident that following the resident’s reports in April 2021, the landlord completed an inspection in the same month and completed repairs approximately one month later. While no copies of communication from this period have been provided, given that the issues were occurring in a non-living space, the timeframes for the inspection and works were reasonable in the circumstances. The landlord also appropriately recorded its actions on its repairs log; however, the level of detail about the works completed could be improved.
Additionally, while it is evident that the landlord completed replastering works to repair the damage, given that the issues were reported to have been caused by damp, the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to satisfy itself that there was no ongoing issue. It is not evident that any detailed inspections as to the cause of the damage took place, nor did the landlord provide the resident with its position on what the cause of the issue was.
The landlord has acknowledged that, at the time of the repairs, the resident requested that it complete redecoration works following the repairs. Once again, communications around this issue have not been provided to this service. However, in such circumstances, the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to provide its position on redecoration, and if it agreed to redecorate, provide details of the arrangements and scope of works. In this case, it is not evident that it ever made such arrangements. It also later referenced that a contractor attended but did not have the correct equipment. In such circumstances, the landlord’s systems should be sufficiently robust to ensure an appointment is rearranged. This did not occur. This would have been frustrating for the resident, who had to expend time and effort chasing the issue as part of a formal complaint.
Following the resident’s further reports in February 2022 that the issue had returned, the landlord once again carried out an initial inspection within a reasonable timeframe. However, this inspection, along with subsequent inspections and works, were not included on the landlord’s repair records. A landlord should keep sufficiently detailed records of actions such as repairs so it can demonstrate to both the resident and ultimately the Ombudsman that it took reasonable actions. Its failure to do so demonstrates that the landlord’s record keeping was insufficient in this case.
In its stage one response, the landlord appropriately informed the resident about the outcome of its inspection and the recommendations of its surveyor. It also appropriately advised her about the steps it was taking to progress works, such as liaising with the waterproofing warrantors in order to better understand what was required. The Ombudsman understands that it can take time to liaise with multiple parties when arranging works, which can delay a resolution. This nevertheless has an impact on the resident. It was therefore appropriate that the landlord apologised for the delay this was causing.
Further to the damage caused by damp, the resident also reported a leak coming through the bin store light. It is not evident that this was formally reported prior to the resident’s reference to it in February 2022. The landlord subsequently confirmed it had rectified the leak and made safe the lights on 7 March 2022. Given the resident’s concerns about electrical safety, the landlord should have explained why it did not consider this to be an urgent repair.
The Ombudsman notes that the resident raised concerns about the ironworks, lock, and pump system in February 2022, which were not addressed in the landlord’s stage one response. These issues, along with the damp issues in her bathroom, were also excluded from its stage two response. This has been discussed in detail below in the ‘complaints handling’ section of this report.
As previously noted, while some delay is to be expected when liaising with multiple parties to resolve an issue, the Ombudsman would expect a high level of communication to ensure the resident understood the reasons for the delay. However, in this case, it is not evident that any meaningful updates were provided following the stage one response. This led the resident to have to escalate her complaint. While the landlord then provided an updated position in its stage two response, this was some four months after its previous response, which would have been distressing for the resident.
In its stage two response, the landlord referenced having completed some repairs. However, once again, these are not noted on its repair logs, nor has any evidence of contemporary communications been provided which outline what action was being taken and when. While it was appropriate that the landlord acknowledged there had been some delays, for which it apologised, its lack of specificity or any records means that the Ombudsman cannot conclude these repairs were completed within a reasonable period.
Regarding the bin room issue, it was appropriate that the landlord provided an update about its findings and explained what measures it would take to prevent the issue from reoccurring. However, it did not provide a specific timeframe for this to occur, which would have been helpful.
For the Ombudsman to conduct a fair and reasonable investigation, both parties must be given the opportunity to explain their positions. The landlord should also be given the opportunity to put things right without the Ombudsman’s intervention. The Ombudsman considers this to occur as part of the landlord’s internal complaints procedure. Where issues that are connected to a complaint have occurred long after a landlord’s stage two response, the Ombudsman must consider if it is fair and reasonable to include them as part of the Ombudsman’s investigation.
In this case, it is evident that the issues continued beyond the stage two response and remain ongoing. It is also evident that, as part of the ongoing attempts to resolve the issues, additional concerns were raised, such as those surrounding the decant and the sump pump account. While the resident has highlighted her position that the ongoing delays and issues with communication have caused considerable distress and inconvenience, the Ombudsman is not in a position to determine if there were any reasonable explanations for the issues and delays over this period. Whether or not the landlord should have raised a new complaint prior to now has been considered below. Nevertheless, an order has been made that the landlord open a new stage one complaint in order to formally investigate and provide its position on the events following its stage two response in July 2022.
Despite the above, immediately following the landlord’s stage two response, the resident sought updates to the works promised in the response. Despite multiple requests, she did not receive a meaningful response until January 2023. Given that the landlord had committed to further inspections and works, such as those to relocate the light in the bin room and inspections to assess damp in the resident’s bathroom, it should reasonably have been aware of the need to keep the resident updated. Its failure to do so over an extended period would have caused considerable distress and inconvenience for the resident.
In summary, there were several occasions throughout the period of this complaint where the landlord completed initial inspections and some works within a reasonable timeframe. However, this was often paired with insufficient communication or follow on works, such as the missed redecoration. Its records have also been poor throughout, meaning it is unable to demonstrate exactly what action was taken and when. Additionally, following both its stage one and stage two responses, the landlord made assurances about works to be undertaken but then failed to provide updates or make the necessary arrangements within a reasonable timeframe. This caused considerable distress and inconvenience for the resident, who had to continually expend time and trouble chasing the issues.
Given the above failings, a finding of maladministration has been made. An order for £600 compensation has been made to reflect the impact caused to the resident over the period of this investigation. This is in line with this service’s remedies guidance where there has been a failure which has adversely affected the resident. An order has also been made for the landlord to review its record keeping procedures to ensure that all works are recorded accurately. Further orders relating to the events occurring after the landlord’s stage two response have been made below.

Complaints handling

As noted above, the landlord’s complaints policy states that it will provide its initial response within seven working days. This service’s Complaints Handling Code (the Code) requires that stage one complaints should be acknowledged within five working days and responded to within 10 working days of an acknowledgement. This is to ensure a landlord has reasonable time to complete a thorough investigation as part of its response. By promising to provide a response within seven working days, the landlord is unnecessarily overpromising while also limiting its ability to complete a full and thorough investigation. A recommendation has therefore been made below for it to ensure its complaints handling policy is compliant with the Code.
In this case, it is not clear what the landlord considered to be the initial complaint. The resident raised concerns on both 18 and 25 February 2022. It may also be the case that a complaint was raised in a separate communication which has not been provided to this service. Whatever the case, while it appears the landlord’s stage one response was not provided strictly within seven working days, it was nevertheless provided within a reasonable timeframe which did not significantly impact the overall progression of the complaint.
The resident subsequently escalated her complaint on 5 April 2022. The landlord provided its stage two response on 11 July 2022. Whether using the 10 working days noted in the landlord’s policy, or the five working days for an acknowledgement plus 20 working days for a response as required by the Code, the landlord’s response was significantly delayed without a reasonable explanation.
The landlord appropriately acknowledged this delay in its stage two response and offered £20 compensation. Its compensation policy notes that it may offer £20 for instances where it did not respond to correspondence. Given the importance of the stage two response, along with the three-month delay to the landlord issuing it, this compensation was not reflective of impact caused to the resident.
In addition to the timeframes for responses, there were issues with what the landlord considered as a complaint in its responses. The Code notes that a complaint is defined as an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service or lack of actions of a landlord.
In her communications in February 2022, the resident made it clear she was concerned about the crumbling ironworks, the lock, and the pump system. However, the landlord did not address these issues in its subsequent stage one response. In its stage two response, it noted that it would not address these issues as they had not been included in its stage one response. Given that the resident had raised her concerns about these issues in the same communication that included the issues about the damp to which it did respond, the landlord should reasonably have addressed all of these issues in its stage one response. If it did not consider her comments to automatically amount to a formal complaint, then it should have clarified with her what issues she wanted included in the formal complaint.
Furthermore, its stage two response made it clear that it understood these were ongoing concerns. While it may not have been appropriate to address them in the stage two response, it should have either used its initiative to open a new stage one complaint or otherwise clarified with the resident about whether she wanted a new stage one complaint. Its failure to do this meant these issues were never formally investigated by the landlord, despite it knowing they were concerns of the resident. This also unreasonably delayed any resolution to the concerns.
The same is true for the resident’s concerns about her bathroom. The landlord appropriately raised works relating to the inspection of the bathroom following its stage two response; however, it declined to provide a formal complaint response. Given that the resident had expressed concerns that the issue had been ongoing for some time, it once again missed the opportunity to raise a new stage one complaint.
The Code notes that the stage two response must be the landlord’s final response. A process with more than two stages is not acceptable under any circumstances. Following its stage two response, the landlord repeatedly advised that it would provide a follow-on stage two response in which it would make an offer of compensation once the works were completed. The landlord’s insistence that this further response was necessary to complete its complaints handling meant it de facto amounted to a further stage.
Additionally, the lack of any specific timeframe for the response meant that the complaint period was left to go on indefinitely without any resolution. While it may have been reasonable to seek to calculate compensation for ongoing issues once they are resolved, there were certainly issues that had already occurred for which it could have offered compensation, such as the earlier failure to redecorate. It could also have done more to make it clear that its further response did not prevent the resident from referring her complaint to this service.
Furthermore, at no point did the landlord define what its follow-up response would cover or the periods it would cover, despite a request from the resident that it explain this. Given that the ongoing issues included things that it had excluded from its stage two response, the resident was left unsure about what would be covered by the follow-on response or any offer of compensation. Its failure to clarify this also prevented her from seeking to raise further complaints on her own volition.
In summary, the landlord failed to include all of the resident’s concerns in its initial complaint response or otherwise make reasonable enquires with the resident about whether she wanted them raised. It failed to provide its stage two response within a reasonable timeframe, and while it offered compensation, this was not proportionate in the circumstances. It also caused confusion with its promise of a further response, which did not set out what it would cover or when it would be provided. This ultimately left multiple concerns of the resident to go without investigation, despite multiple opportunities for the landlord to do so.
Given the above failings, a finding of maladministration has been made. An order for £1,000 has been made. This is made up of:
1. £200 for the landlord’s failure to formally respond to all the issues raised by the resident at stage one, or to have otherwise made reasonable enquiries about whether she wished them to be investigated;
2. £200 for the delay to the landlord’s stage two response;
3. £200 for the landlord’s failure to clarify the nature of its promised updated stage two response despite the resident’s requests;
4. £400 for the landlord’s repeated failure to raise a new complaint about the ongoing issues that followed its stage two response, despite repeated expressions of dissatisfaction from the resident.
An order has also been made for the landlord to open a new stage one complaint, which must cover the period following its stage two response in July 2022 to the present. It should contact the resident and discuss her outstanding concerns across this period as part of its complaint investigation.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its:
1. response to the resident’s reports about repair issues caused by damp;
2. complaints handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay compensation of £1,600, comprising:
1. £600 for any distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its poor response to her reports about repair issues caused by damp;
2. £1,000 for its ineffective complaints handling.
This replaces the landlord’s previous offer of £20. This amount (less any amount already paid by the landlord as part of its previous offer) must be paid within four weeks of the date of this determination.
Within four weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord is to:
1. Review its record keeping procedures to ensure that all works, including those completed by contractors, are recorded accurately.
2. Open a new stage one complaint, which must cover the period following its stage two response in July 2022 to the present.

Recommendations

The landlord is to ensure it has self-assessed its complaints handling policy against the Code and made any necessary amendments.