Westminster City Council (202316600)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202316600

Westminster City Council

31 January 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. Leaks to the resident’s property.
2. Lack of lighting in the resident property.
3. The complaint.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s record keeping.

Background

The resident is a leaseholder of a 2 bedroom flat. The property is situated over 2 floors. The resident lives in the property with his elderly parents, his partner, and 3 children. There are no recorded vulnerabilities. The lease began in October 2016 and the landlord is the freeholder.
The resident raised a repair with the landlord on 24 April 2023. He explained that there was a leak in his property. The landlord’s contractor attended on 9 May 2023 and found water damage to the boxing in his home.
The concerns remained outstanding, and the resident raised a complaint with the landlord on 1 June 2023. He provided a history of his concerns from 24 April 2023 onwards, and his actions in contacting it and its contractor. He expressed his frustration at the repeated leak. He also said if there was no follow up from residents the landlord did not take responsibility to investigate the root cause of the issue. He explained he wanted:
1. The matter resolved as soon as possible.
2. Once resolved a full report identifying the root cause and why he had several water leaks from the same area.
3. Financial compensation for the delays, disruption, distress, inconvenience, and negligence.
The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 30 June 2023. It explained its contractors suggested actions to trace the leak. It also explained that its records show that its contractor recommended further investigations to the properties above his home. The landlord however closed the repair without access to these properties. The landlord:
1. Said that as a leaseholder it was his responsibility to provide suitable access to the services that run through his home. Its contractors were authorised to create access where needed to trace a leak, on the condition they made it good after. They had left his property without completing a full investigation.
2. It apologised that it closed the repairs, and said it recorded the matter as complete on 9 May 2023. It should have reopened the job, or it should have raised a new repair. This was because it needed follow on works to continue the investigation until it resolved the leak.
3. It explained the actions it had taken to access his neighbours’ properties and investigate. It found that there was a possible gully leak when it rained. This was because all his neighbours’ properties were dry. It raised a repair to fix the issue, and its contractor would attend on 4 July 2023.
4. It identified a problem with its complaint handling and apologised for the delay in providing a full response within its published timescale. It also apologised for its failure to keep him informed.
5. It awarded him compensation of £120 broken down as:
  1. £20 for the incomplete investigation within his property.
  2. £20 for the follow on works not being actioned.
  3. £40 for its contractor closing the job without informing it of the ongoing leak.
  4. £40 for the later stage 1 response.
The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and escalated his complaint on 1 July 2023. He raised concerns around delays in the landlord’s handling of the situation, having to chase for updates, a lack of lighting in the property and its investigation into the issue including a leak from his kitchen. He reiterated the damage to his property, said it smelled of damp and had no working lights in the property “including the toilets.” He said its compensation offer was insulting.
Between 10 July 2023 and 30 July 2023, the resident continued to email the landlord around the issue. It responded on 2 August 2023 and apologised for the delay in its response. It said although there were access issues with accessing his neighbours’ properties, these were outside of its control. It expected that it would have kept him informed of progress regardless of progress.
The landlord provided its stage 2 response to the resident on 4 August 2024. It apologised for the delay in providing the response. It acknowledged the frustration and inconvenience caused to him. It apologised, explained its findings, and said:
1. It upheld his complaint in relation to the 15 day delay in dealing with his emergency repair.
2. Although it had not discussed the damage to his kitchen ceiling in its earlier response, it was aware of this and investigated the leak. It said it was partially upholding this aspect of his complaint.
3. It explained that wiring of his property was his responsibility as a leaseholder. It apologised for not explaining his responsibilities as a leaseholder and said it partially upheld his complaint in relation to the lack of lighting in the property.
4. It acknowledged that there was a delay in its complaint response and upheld this aspect of the complaint.
5. It offered the resident compensation of £265 which it broke down as:
  1. £120 previously offered at stage 1.
  2. £25 in recognition of its failure to deliver on its repair obligation within target.
  3. £100 in recognition of the inconvenience caused and poor communication.
  4. £20 in recognition of the complaint handling.
The resident told the Ombudsman about his concerns on 8 August 2023 and the damage to his property. He explained:
1. The matter remained outstanding since 24 April 2023.
2. Since 18 June 2023 he had no light until it resolved the leak. He could not start an insurance claim until then.
3. He believed the landlord should repair the lights as the water damage caused the delay. It responded on 4 August 2023 and explained the reasons for the delay. However, the negligence of closing the initial job caused all the delays and damage to his property.
4. He was constantly contacting the landlord for updates, and he felt the compensation was unacceptable for the distress caused.

Post complaint

The resident told the Ombudsman on 16 January 2025 that his insurance claim had been successful. He received a payment of £17,432.24 to reflect the extent of the damages. He also confirmed that the restoration works were complete. He said the landlord’s initial negligence in failing to address the leak promptly and closing the job prematurely significantly contributed to the escalation of the damage. He said the insurance payout showed this, and the prolonged water penetration led to further issues, including disruptions to the lighting system.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident has raised concerns in relation to negligence. The Ombudsman is unable to make any findings around negligence. This is because such findings require a legal determination. As such, a court of law may deal with any such concerns.
The resident suggested that as his insurance claim was successful, and he received a significant payment, this showed that the landlord failed to handle matters appropriately. This investigation cannot consider the outcome of the insurance claim as these matters do not fall within the remit of the Ombudsman. This report will consider what the landlord did in response to the resident’s repairs reports and whether its actions were in line with its obligations under the lease.

Leaks to the resident’s property

Kitchen

The landlord appropriately acknowledged in its response that it failed to meet the timescales for an emergency response as advised within its policy. Instead of attending within a 24 hour period, it attended 15 days later, and this was unreasonable.
The landlord confirmed to the Ombudsman on 13 January 2025 that the source of the leak to the resident’s property originated from a property owned by another leaseholder. It further confirmed on 17 January 2025 that the leak originated from their bathroom. As such, the leaseholder of that property was responsible for the repair. The matter of the damage and any associated repairs was better dealt with through the relevant insurance procedures by the resident and leaseholder. This was especially so as the resident identified that there was damage to his property.
The landlord was responsible for establishing whether there were any repairs it should complete. If it was not responsible for completing the necessary repairs, it should have explained this to the resident, and his neighbour. The landlord took a few months to complete its investigations into the issue and this caused the resident frustration. Access to his neighbour’s property caused the delays and this was outside of the landlord’s control as they were leaseholders. However, as the leak came from another leaseholder’s property, it was not responsible for rectifying the issue. The landlord confirmed in an email to the Ombudsman on 28 January 2025 that the leaseholder above the resident completed the repairs to the property.
The Ombudsman notes the resident’s belief that the damage to his property would not have been as significant but for delays by the landlord. However, the parties have not provided us with any evidence that shows this was the case. It is also not within the Ombudsman’s remit to speculate as to if the landlord acted differently, what damage may or may not have occurred.
The resident also told the landlord that his kitchen cabinets smelled of damp within his escalation request. There is however no evidence to show that the landlord considered or investigated this matter. This demonstrates poor customer focus. However, as another leaseholder was responsible for rectifying the leak, any resulting damage or concerns in the resident’s property were not the landlord’s responsibility.
The resident said that as his insurance claim was successful this supported that the landlord’s inaction in dealing with the matter contributed to the damage to his property. However, the Ombudsman does not determine liability in awarding damage. We consider the distress and inconvenience caused to a resident around the landlord’s actions or inactions, dependant on its relevant obligations.

Bathroom

While investigating the leak to the kitchen, the landlord’s contractor found leak damage to the boxing in his home. They suggested further investigations but closed the repair. It was unable to provide an explanation for this but had inspected his neighbour’s property on 23 May 2023 which confirmed another leak. It identified on 8 June 2023 that there was a stack issue and said it would attend to complete the repair on 4 July 2023. The records show that it completed the necessary repair on 31 August 2023.
The lease states that the landlord is responsible for repairs to gutters and pipes installed in the property for the supply or draining of water and soil other than those solely installed or solely used for the purpose of any particular property. As such, the landlord was responsible for the repairs to the stack pipe.
From the evidence provided, there was a delay of over 3 months in fixing the cause of the leak and this was unreasonable. The resident also said to the landlord on 10 July 2023 that the matter remained outstanding. However, there is no evidence that this leak had spread further than the boxing.
Across both repairs, there were issues with the landlord’s communication. For example, the resident contacted the landlord in July 2023 multiple times about the issues. The evidence suggests he did not receive a response until August 2023, and this was unreasonable. The landlord however acknowledged its communication failings within its stage 2 response.
In summary, there were 2 leaks into the resident’s property. The leak into the kitchen originated from another leaseholder’s property. As such the landlord was not responsible for remedying it. It however delayed in completing its investigations due to access issues from the neighbours. In relation to the second leak, the landlord acknowledged the delay in attending to an urgent repair and closing a repair prior to completion in its responses.
It acknowledged the inconvenience and concerns with its communication across both leaks. There was however a 3 month delay in completing the repairs to the stack in relation to the second leak which had caused leak damage to the boxing in the resident’s bathroom. Based on this the Ombudsman finds that there was maladministration.
The landlord’s compensation policy says that it aims to ensure that financial awards are in proportion with the loss and/or inconvenience caused. It will consider compensation where failure to follow its Housing Management policies/procedures had a detrimental effect on residents. In relation to discretionary compensation, it breaks this down into 3 categories: low (payments of up to £250), medium (payments between £250 and £700) and high (payments above £700).
The landlord offered the resident compensation of £205 for its failings around the repairs. This falls within the low impact category within its policy. It acknowledged the delays in its process, but this was in relation to its 15 day delay. There was another delay between 9 May 2023 and 31 August 2023 in completing the necessary repairs to address the cause of the damage to the boxing. Based on this, the Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay the resident added compensation.

Lack of lighting in the resident property

The landlord has provided its operatives notes in relation to the concerns around the lighting in the resident’s property. The notes suggest that it made safe only 1 light fitting following its attendance.
The landlord appropriately informed the resident that he was responsible for the wiring within his home. It explained it made safe the electrics but did not carry out any repairs as that was his responsibility. It also appropriately told him he could claim the costs of this on the building insurance policy. Furthermore, another leaseholder was responsible for rectifying the leak which caused the lighting issues as it originated from their property.
The resident told the Ombudsman he did not have adequate lighting in his property for over 9 months. However, the landlord provided him with temporary lights. As the leak which caused the issues with the lighting originated from another leaseholder’s property, it had no responsibility other than making the wires safe. The landlord’s actions in the situation were appropriate to assist the resident. As such, it acted correctly around its handling of this matter and based on this, the Ombudsman finds that there was no maladministration.

Complaint handling

The landlord operates a 2 stages complaints process. It says it will provide a stage 1 response within 10 working days. It will provide a stage 2 response within 20 working days. It also says that some complaints may need longer to investigate. Where this is the case, it will send a holding response, explaining the reason for the delay and when the resident will receive a response.
The resident raised his complaint on 1 June 2023 and the landlord’s response was due on 15 June 2023. It responded on 30 June 2023 11 working days later than the deadline. It has not shown that it provided a holding response as explained in its policy. Its actions around its complaint handling were unreasonable and not in line with its policy.
The resident escalated his complaint on 1 July 2023 and the landlord acknowledged it on 4 July 2023. It provided a holding response on 28 July 2023 due to a delay in its handling of the complaint. It then provided its response on 8 August 2023. This was much earlier than the date said within its holding response.
The landlord appropriately acknowledged the delays in both its stage 1 and 2 responses. It offered the resident compensation of £60 across both if its responses for the delays and lack of communication and this was appropriate. Based on this, the Ombudsman finds that there was reasonable redress.

Record keeping

The Ombudsman asked the landlord to provide evidence around its handling of the resident’s concerns. In response to a number of the requests for evidence from the Ombudsman, it provided email addresses for us to contact to potentially obtain the information. Part of a landlord’s obligations under the scheme is to provide information to us when requested. As such the landlord should have collated all requested and necessary information and provided this to us upon request.
Instead, the landlord expected the Ombudsman to contact each individual service within the landlord’s organisation to obtain the relevant information. This was unreasonable, and not in keeping with its duty under paragraph 10 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. Following the introduction email of the adjudicator, the landlord then however provided necessary information about their request.
The landlord’s record keeping also had an impact on its service provision to the resident. It has shown that it did not keep appropriate records which led to a lack of information around the repair to the leaks. This then led to delays in resolving the issue, and an inability to explain why it closed the job despite the need for further investigation. This led to frustration for the resident, and him living with the issue for potentially longer than was necessary. It also saw him chasing for updates before the landlord provided him with information.
Based on the above, the Ombudsman finds that there was service failure with the landlord’s record keeping.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was:
1. Maladministration with the landlord’s handling of the repairs to the resident’s property.
2. No maladministration with the landlord’s handling of the lighting to the resident’s property.
3. Service failure with the landlord’s record keeping.

In accordance with paragraph 53 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was reasonable redress with the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of this determination the landlord must:
1. Provide the resident with an apology around the failings identified.
2. Pay the resident compensation of £505 for its handling of the repairs. This is inclusive of its previous offer of £205.
3. Provide proof of compliance with these orders.

Recommendation

Pay the resident £60 already offered across its responses for its complaint handling failings.