Westminster City Council (202322487)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202322487

Westminster City Council

31 March 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 response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property.

Background

The resident has lived at the property since 1993. It is a 2 level, ground floor flat in a terraced house. The tenancy type is not given on the tenancy agreement. The resident told the landlord that both her and her son (aged 19) have asthma. From late 2022 and into 2023 the resident was bedbound due to a foot injury.
A surveyor and damp and mould specialist inspected the property on 20 March 2023. They found light mould and increased moisture readings on some of the walls. They recommended works to windows, walls and ventilation.
The resident made a complaint on 27 June 2023. She said that nothing had been done since the survey. She was concerned about the effect of damp on the heath of the household.
The landlord responded at stage 1 on 10 July 2023. It apologised for the delay in carrying out the work. It offered a total of £120 compensation. The resident escalated her complaint. She said works to the windows had been done poorly and the landlord had not addressed the damp.
The landlord inspected the property and requested further works. It responded at stage 2 on 30 August 2023. It acknowledged the delays to the works and its lack of communication. It committed to completing the outstanding work. It offered a total of £460 compensation. The resident declined this.
The resident referred her case to us on 29 September 2023. She said that works were outstanding. She was worried about the impact on the health of the household.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident said she believes both her and her adult son’s asthma was made worse by the condition of the property. The courts are the best place for disputes about personal injury and illness. This is because independent medical experts can give evidence and opinion. They have a duty to the court to provide unbiased information on the diagnosis, prognosis and the cause of any illness or injury. When disputes arise over the cause of any such injury, this can be examined in court. Therefore, it is quicker, fairer, more reasonable and more effective to seek a remedy to this through the courts. While we cannot consider the effect of the landlord’s actions or inactions on health, consideration will be given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced as a result of a landlord failing.
Following the completion of the internal complaints procedure 30 August 2023, the resident raised a number of other issues. As these issues were not part of the formal complaint to the landlord, these cannot be investigated at this stage. To have these matters investigated, the resident must complain about them to her landlord. If the resident remains dissatisfied with how the landlord has handled her complaints after they have completed its internal complaints process, she may at that point escalate them to be considered by us. For clarity, these matters, which do not form part of this assessment are as follows:
1. A cancelled contractor appointment on 1 September 2023.
2. The resident’s request for the WC to be replaced.
3. The resident’s request for a different member of the landlord’s staff deal with repair issues.
4. A repair to the bedroom door.
5. A lack of heating.
6. A mess left by contractors after kitchen works.
7. The doorbell not working.
8. The front door locks not working.
9. A missing radiator dial.
10. Infestation of woodlice.
11. White crystals appearing on walls after plastering.
12. Electricity usage doubling.
13. A broken manhole cover.
14. The impact of works carried out between February and June 2024.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property

The landlord’s tenancy handbook says that it will complete non-urgent repairs such as joinery, plastering, damp proof courses and structural work within 28 working days. It is not disputed that the landlord was responsible for the repair issues in this case. It is also not disputed that the landlord did not complete the repairs in line with this timeframe.
The landlord’s records show that it noted a need to carry out damp proofing in the hallway in December 2021. We have not seen any further note of damp and mould at the property until the landlord carried out a survey on 20 March 2023. The survey identified the following issues:
1. Increased moisture readings under the bedroom window and in the lounge.
2. Condensation on the single glazed bedroom window and light mould on the wall underneath.
3. The bay window rail was rotten.
It recommended the following works:
1. Renew the bay window rail. Carry out window repairs and timber care.
2. Hack off and reskim the wall under the bedroom window and redecorate.
3. Further investigate the areas with high moisture readings.
4. Upgrade the positive input ventilation system (PIV).
We expect landlords to be aware of the potential hazard that can be caused by damp and mould. The landlord acted appropriately in arranging a damp and mould survey. However afterwards, it did not follow up to make sure that the works had been actioned. Despite knowing that the resident had mobility issues and that works were needed it did not make sure that these were carried out in line with its repairs policy.
It took until around mid-June 2023 for a contractor to attended to carry out works to the windows. This was around 3 months after the issues had been identified. Following this, the resident made a complaint on27 June 2023. She said that the contractor had put filler on the outside of a window but had not returned as promised. As such, she had waited in unnecessarily. She believed the mould had made her and her son’s asthma worse.
Despite the resident’s concern about the impact on health, there is no evidence that the landlord took her concerns on board. It was aware that no works to tackle the issues, which included mould, had been carried out in the 3 months since they were identified. There is no evidence that the landlord took any mitigating or interim action to try to improve the conditions in the property for the resident during this time. It did not consider offering a mould wash or supplying a dehumidifier. These are steps the landlord could have taken in response to the health concerns raised. This would have also reflected the approach of its damp and mould policy, which came into effect the following month (July 2023).
The landlord responded to the complaint at stage 1 on 10 July 2023. It said as follows:
1. Following the March 2023 damp survey, the surveyor had gone on long-term sick leave. As such, the works had not been raised until they returned on 31 May 2023.
2. The contractor had not carried out the window works as requested. As such, further work had been done to the window on 7 July 2023.
3. It had booked plastering works for 17 and 18 July 2023.
4. It upheld the complaint. It apologised for the lack of progress, delayed appointments and poor communication.
5. It offered a total of £120 compensation, made up as follows:
  1. £50 for the delay in carrying out the works.
  2. £50 for the inconvenience caused.
  3. £20 for the resident’s time and trouble chasing the repairs.
Although the landlord acknowledged its failures in its stage 1 response. It did not demonstrate that it had taken the resident’s health concerns on board. There is no evidence that it signposted her to information on how to make a personal injury claim. It also failed to address the work needed to the PIV unit.
The landlord’s damp and mould policy was introduced in July 2023. This was around the time of the stage 1 response. It says:
1. It will diagnose and book any treatment within 3 days of a report. It will deal with the matter within 20 days. It will follow up on every case and every visit.
2. It will remove mould before any longer term works are done.
3. It will agree an action plan with residents to resolve issues.
4. If a property has persistent damp, it will allocate a surveyor as a point of contact.
5. In severe cases it will consider providing a dehumidifier.
The resident escalated her complaint on31 July 2023 and said as follows:
1. An appointment on 18 July 2023 had been cancelled without her knowing. She had waiting in unnecessary. The contractor had made appointments without speaking to her.
2. The landlord had not addressed the damp or the PIV unit. The walls were wet. Both her and her son’s asthma had worsened.
3. Putty and plaster had been stuck to the outside of the bay window. This meant it was sealed shut. Windowsills and rotten frames had only been patched up, not replaced.
4. Works to the bedroom window had taken until around 8pm.
5. A contractor had told her about a flag on the system saying they had to attend in pairs. She found this “very disrespectful and hurtful”.
The landlord contacted the resident on 8 August 2023. It asked if she was happy with the replastering (done on 17 July 2023) and the timber care work (done on 7 July 2023). It had chased work to the PIV unit. It advised the following day that it had requested another damp survey.
The resident responded on 9 August 2023 as follows:
1. The plastering had been done but not the redecoration.
2. Work to the bedroom window was not finished.
3. The bay windowsill had not been replaced. A contractor had sealed it shut.
4. The bathroom window frame was warped and rotting.
5. The PIV unit had not been removed.
6. There was a “tiny hole” to the front wall. She believed this was contributing to the damp.
Following the resident’s ongoing concerns, the landlord inspected the property within 2 days on 11 August 2023. It requested works be arranged by the end of that month. This demonstrated an understanding of the urgency of these works on the part of the landlord in light of the earlier delays. The works were as follows:
1. A recall to address poor quality works to the bay window.
2. Timber care was required for the upstairs and kitchen windows.
3. Replacement of the PIV unit.
4. Ventilation was required in the upstairs toilet.
5. There was condensation on the bedroom skirting.
The evidence shows the landlord acknowledged that the window work was not of a good enough standard. Although it appropriately apologised to the resident for this, it did not advise whether it had taken any internal action to find out why this had happened or how it could stop this happening again. This was a missed opportunity for it to address this with its contractor and reduce the chance of such issues in the future.
The contractor arranged the works for 1 September 2023. It told the landlord that it had tried to speak to the resident about the date but she had not answered its calls. It said it would send a letter telling her about the appointment. The resident told the landlord that she would not be available for this appointment and that she had not agreed to the date. The landlord raised this with the contractor which demonstrated that it had taken her concerns seriously.
The landlord responded at stage 2 on 30 August 2023 and said as follows:
1. Damp and mould:
  1. It apologised for the lack of communication regarding the cancelled appointment and the frustration caused. It had no explanation about why this had been cancelled or why the resident had not been told.
  2. It apologised that there had been no follow-up after the March 2023 survey had found increased moisture readings. The staff member who oversaw the survey had left the organisation.
  3. It had requested another damp survey. Due to limited resources, it was experiencing issues with arranging this. It would monitor the situation and had assigned a Senior Surveyor as the resident’s point of contact.
2. Windows:
  1. It apologised that following window repairs in mid-June 2023, it had failed to return on 2 occasions. It apologised that work had continued late into the evening.
  2. In light of the resident’s concerns, it had assessed the window repairs. It acknowledged they had not been completed satisfactorily. The contractor had arranged an appointment but if this was not suitable, it would rearrange.
  3. It apologised for the inconvenience and poor service. It had failed to deliver on its repair commitment and it did not follow-up to ensure the works were completed.
3. Positive Input Ventilation unit:
  1. The PIV unit was last serviced in September 2022 and was due for service in September 2023. It would arrange an appointment to service or replace it.
4. Tenancy flag:
  1. It apologised if information about a flag on the tenancy record had caused upset. It had passed this to the resident’s Housing Officer to investigate. The investigation was ongoing.
5. Conclusion:
  1. It upheld the complaint as it had failed to deliver on the commitments made at stage 1.
  2. It apologised for the multiple failed appointments, lack of communication, lack of follow-on works and delays in completing repairs.
  3. It would review the agreed actions in a month to ensure that they had been progressed.
6. It offered £460 compensation as follows:
  1. £120 previously offered a stage 1.
  2. £100 in recognition of the delay from 18 July 2023.
  3. £90 in recognition of the poor communication, missed appointments and failure to action follow-on recommendations.
  4. £150 in recognition of the inconvenience caused and the time and trouble taken to pursue the matter.
The landlord’s stage 2 response was detailed and acknowledged failures. In assigning a Senior Surveyor as the resident’s point of contact, it acted in line with its damp and mould policy for instances where there is persistent damp. The response also included an action plan going forward which it committed to review. This was also in line with its damp and mould policy. It committed to do the following:
1. Arrange another damp survey.
2. Rearrange the 1 September 2023 appointment for window work if the resident was not available.
3. Arrange to service or replace the PIV unit.
4. Investigate the flag on the tenancy record.
At the completion of the internal complaints procedure on30 August 2023 the majority of the works were still outstanding. Works were subsequently carried out as follows:
1. 30 August 2023 – another damp survey was done. It recommended that damp proof course be injected into the affected areas of the walls. It found possible damp behind the kitchen units.
2. 5 September 2023 – the landlord removed the flag from the tenancy record.
3. 14 September 2023 – window timber care was completed and the bay window was repaired.
4. 18 January 2024 – bathroom window works were completed.
5. February to June 2024 – works to address the damp were carried out.
The landlord told us that there were no outstanding repairs regarding damp and mould. Evidence of this was not provided. The resident told us (in March 2025) that following the works between February and June 2024, the damp had reappeared. Despite another surveyor attending in December 2024, no further works had been done.
When failures are identified, our role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the complaint satisfactorily. In considering this, we take into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes as well as our own guidance on remedies.
It is accepted by the landlord that the works identified in March 2023 took too long to be carried out. The majority of these works were still not done at the time of the completion of the internal complaints procedure 5 months later.
The landlord’s offer of £460 compensation was within a range we would recommend where failures have adversely affected a resident. Although the landlord considered inconvenience caused to the resident, it did not show that it had considered the distress she had been caused. It also failed to show that it had taken the resident’s physical health concerns on board.
Given these failures, the delays in carrying out the works and the landlord’s lack of oversight of the repairs, its offer of compensation was not sufficient. It did not reflect the level of impact upon the resident. As such, these failings lead to a determination of maladministration.
To acknowledge the impact on the resident, we have ordered £700 compensation. This is within the range of our remedies guidance where there was a significant impact caused to a resident by failures of a landlord.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property.

Orders

The landlord is ordered to take the following action within 4 weeks of this report and provide evidence of compliance to the Ombudsman:
1. Pay a total of £700 compensation to the resident. This includes the landlord’s previous offer of £460. This does not have to be paid again if this has already been paid to the resident.
2. Confirm the following to us and the resident in writing:
  1. The outcome of the PIV unit being serviced and whether this will be replaced.
  2. When damp proof coursing work was completed.
  3. Action that was taken in respect of the small hole in the wall the resident had reported.
The landlord is ordered to take the following action within 8 weeks of this report and provide evidence of compliance to the Ombudsman:
1. Carry out a damp and mould survey at the property. Provide the resident and us with an action plan to show what identified works will be completed and a timeframe for these to be completed.
2. Carry out a review of the failures identified in this case. This should focus on why the delays occurred, how it handles outstanding works during periods of staff absence and how it responds when resident’s raise concerns of their health being impacted. The landlord will provide a copy of the summary of its findings as evidence of compliance with this order.