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

Westminster City Council (202331494)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202331494

Westminster City Council

23 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 handling of the resident’s:

a.     Reports of leaks from the roof.

b.     Associated complaint.

Background

  1. The residents are secure tenants of the local authority landlord. The property is a terraced house. The residents live with their daughter. The landlord has no recorded vulnerabilities for the residents. For the purpose of this report, all residents will be referred to as ‘the resident’.   
  2. In October 2021, the resident reported that the gutter broke, which caused water ingress through the ceiling and onto the walls, affecting the front bedroom. There was a secondary leak from the rear gutter affecting the rear bedroom. In the following months, the landlord carried out several repairs that did not resolve the leaks inside the resident’s home.
  3. On 3 October 2022, the resident formally complained to the landlord and said:

a.     The landlord provided “quick fixes”, such as cementing over holes in the gutter or using a silicone sealant to prevent rainwater ingress. It did not carry out an effective and long-lasting repair and failed to stop rainwater from entering the property.

b.     Operatives inspected the roof on 19 May 2022 and advised that the gutter was rotten and could not be repaired. She had been left with scaffolding being erected for months at a time without work taking place.

c.      To resolve the complaint, she would like the landlord to repair the leaks and make good the damage caused internally.

  1. The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 24 October 2022. It said:

a.     It had attempted repairs in October and November 2021 but was not able to resolve the leak.

b.     The delay in carrying out the work was because of a section 20 consultation requirement.

c.      It had now rebooked the work. It would monitor closely and ensure it was completed in a timely manner.

d.     It offered £50 in compensation for the distress caused by the ‘delays’.

  1. The landlord erected scaffolding on the resident’s property on 10 November 2022. On 1 December 2022, the work was supposed to start, but the contractor failed to attend. The job was rescheduled to begin on 8 December 2022, but operatives failed to attend. Operatives then attended the property on 16 December 2022 and said the job would have to start in the new year.
  2. On 3 January 2023, the resident chased the landlord for an update. The landlord said it would call the contractor and ring the resident back. The resident did not hear back, and she chased the landlord again on 6 January 2023. The landlord thanked the resident for reminding it that the repair was still ongoing and asked the resident if she knew what the nature of the delay was.
  3. The resident wrote back and said the landlord had not yet approved the quote. The landlord responded that it had been approved. It rescheduled the work to start on 8 January 2023, but no one attended to do the work. the job was then rescheduled for 16 January 2023, but again, no one attended to do the work.
  4. On 19 January 2023, the landlord wrote its final response and said:

a.     It had received 2 quotes which were high. It had value-for-money obligations, which contributed to the delay in doing the work.

b.     In December 2022, it decided to erect scaffolding so that its operatives could gain access to inspect the roof.

c.      It had approved the work to start in January 2023, and it would improve the gutter design.

d.     Once completed, it would redecorate the damage caused internally.

e.     In recognition of the distress caused, it offered the resident its apology and £120 in compensation comprised of:

i.        £50 offered at Stage 1 of its complaint process.

ii.      £25 for the further delays in arranging the work.

iii.    £25 for the time and trouble in pursuing the complaint.

iv.    £20 in recognition of the delays in providing its stage 2 response.

  1. The resident asked this service to investigate her complaint in December 2023. she said:

a.     There was a lack of ownership within the landlord over repairs, managing contractors and monitoring the quality of the works.

b.     Residents were left chasing the issue with the landlord and having to explain the history of the repairs on every phone call with the landlord and every interaction with operatives.

c.      The resident and her family had been breathing damp plaster for years. Both her parents were diagnosed with Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) within a few months of each other.

d.     To resolve the complaint, she would like the issue to be resolved permanently.

  1. In the evidence submission sent to this service, the landlord accepted that the leak had been ongoing since October 2021, which it said was “finally resolved in June 2024”. However, the resident reported to this service in September 2024 that the leak was ongoing.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. It is noted that the resident initially reported the leaking gutter to the landlord in 2019. She had raised a previous complaint in 2020, which was not escalated to this service. The Ombudsman encourages residents to raise unresolved complaints to this service so that any service failure by the landlord can be identified and addressed in a timely manner. As issues become historical, evidence becomes difficult to obtain and authenticate. As such, this investigation will focus on events from October 2021, when the resident reported the broken gutter again.
  2. The resident’s assertion that the landlord’s handling of this case has negatively impacted her family’s health has been noted. It is beyond the expertise of this service to determine a causal link between the landlord’s actions (or lack thereof) and the impact on health. However, where a failure on the landlord’s part is identified, this service can consider the resulting distress and inconvenience.

 

Record-keeping

  1. There are gaps in the evidence submitted by the landlord throughout this case. From October 2021, when the resident initially raised the repair, until its January 2023 final response letter it sent evidence of a surveyor inspection report from April 2022, an internal email from 6 January 2023, and a copy of its complaint responses.
  2. Its repair log has 4 entries, 1 for each year between 2021 and 2024. According to the landlord’s repairs log, the repair, which had been raised in October 2021, was completed in October 2023. It is concerning that the landlord’s records do not include all the details of its interaction with the resident or what happened at every repair appointment or inspection and in between. Contemporaneous evidence provided by the resident is missing from the landlord’s bundle of information, and work orders quoted by the resident do not appear in the landlord’s repairs log.
  3. It is vital for landlords to keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail of events. This helps the Ombudsman to understand the landlord’s actions and decision-making at the time. If there is disputed evidence and no audit trail, we may not be able to determine that an action took place or that the landlord acted fairly and in line with its policies.
  4. In this case, the resident provided substantial evidence, which included emails from the landlord, journals taken regularly, details of contractors and names and phone numbers of who she talked to. Due to the lack of evidence provided by the landlord, the resident’s evidence was not disputed or shown to be inaccurate.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of leaks from the roof

  1. When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its Dispute Resolution Principles, which include treating people fairly, following fair processes, putting things right, and learning from outcomes. The Ombudsman must first consider whether a failure on the landlord’s part occurred and, if so, whether this adversely affected or caused detriment to the resident. If a failure by the landlord adversely affected the resident, the investigation will then consider whether the landlord took enough action to ‘put things right’ and learn from the outcome.
  2. The resident’s tenancy agreement reflects the landlord’s obligations under section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 to repair and keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property. This includes the roof, gutters, and walls. Once ‘on notice’, the landlord is required to carry out the repairs within a reasonable time, as defined in its repairs policy.
  3. The landlord’s repairs policy states it will carry out repairs according to the urgency of the situation. Plastering, damp-proof courses and roofing works will be repaired within 28 working days.
  4. On 18 October 2021, the resident reported to the landlord that there were leaks from the gutters. This marked the point that the landlord was put ‘on notice’ and was responsible for carrying out the repairs within 28 working days, in accordance with its repairs policy.
  5. In October 2021, the landlord’s operatives visited the resident’s property, cleared debris from the gutters, covered holes with cement, and applied silicon sealant. However, this did not stop the leaks. Operatives returned to the property In November 2021, still within the landlord’s target of 28 working days. The landlord instructed its contractor to carry out a “more comprehensive repair” of the resident’s roof. The landlord acted appropriately by arranging for operatives to return to the resident’s roof in November 2021 within the prescribed 28 working days. It is recognised that resolving leaks can take more than one attempt, as various factors could contribute to it. Therefore, the landlord acted appropriately here.
  6. Following the second repair attempt in November 2021, the resident reported to the landlord that the contractor had failed to complete the repairs and that the leak was still ongoing. However, operatives advised the landlord that the roof was repaired. The resident chased the landlord to repair the roof, and the landlord sent its surveyor to inspect the roof again in April 2022. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to inspect the roof at the earliest opportunity, as soon as the resident reported that the contractor had failed to repair the roof and that the leak was ongoing in November 2021. It was unreasonable that the landlord only did so in April 2022, 6 months after the resident reported issues with the contractor.
  7. The resulting report from the April 2022 inspection did not identify any recent repairs to the gutter. It confirmed that the leak was ongoing, and it said the landlord should replace the mortar under the guttering, increase the height of the front gutter, and replace the cap on the rear gutter. The landlord raised a job for these repairs in May 2022. In her October 2022 stage 1 complaint, the resident said that operatives had attended on 19 May 2022 and said that the gutter was rotten and could not be repaired. The landlord again did not inspect the property following the resident’s continued reports. There is no evidence that it explained the nature of the delay to the resident, which was not appropriate.
  8. The landlord said in its October 2022 stage 1 response that the delay was for reasons outside its control, as it had to conduct a section 20 consultation. This was incorrect. Section 20 consultation was a requirement to consult with leaseholders. The landlord confirmed to this service that no Section 20 consultation had been carried out, and it was unable to explain this error. Therefore, there is no evidence that the delay in carrying out the work was outside of the landlord’s control.
  9. Between its October 2022 stage 1 letter and its January 2023 stage 2 letter, the landlord confirmed to the resident that work would start on 5 different dates. It did so despite only receiving the quote for the work after 16 January 2023. This was not appropriate. It aggravated the resident’s distress and damaged her confidence that the landlord would complete the repair effectively.
  10. In its January 2023 stage 2 response, the landlord said it had not carried out the works because the quotes were too high. It said its value-for-money obligations meant it could not undertake the works, which contributed to the delay. Information on the landlord’s housing website says, “Value for money is delivered by reducing the number of visits on average for every repair and ensuring a right-first-time culture is embedded” within its organisation. Evidently, there were successive failures to repair the roof effectively. The landlord failed in its repairing obligations, a duty which was unaffected by the cost of carrying out the required repair.
  11. Operatives attended the resident’s property on 19 January 2023 and said they could not proceed with the scope of works specified by the landlord’s in-house surveyor. They advised that that they would carry out a different repair. However, this also failed to resolve the leak. The landlord again failed to repair the leak effectively. It also failed to demonstrate that it had regard to the accumulative impact on the resident or that it identified any learning from the repeated errors to monitor the performance of its operatives.
  12. After the final response letter, the landlord inspected the property again in August 2023, 6 months after the contractor completed the work. The surveyor reported a marked deterioration in the roof and the resulting damage inside the property. The report identified “heavy water penetration in the front bedroom” and ‘visible’ damp staining. The wall was ‘saturated’, with ‘very high’ damp readings. The landlord erected scaffolding again in October 2023. Although scaffolding was dismantled in February 2024, there is no evidence that the landlord verified the repair was effective before dismantling the scaffolding.
  13. The resident continued to report the leak. The landlord inspected the property again in April 2024 and erected scaffolding in May 2024. It dismantled the scaffolding in June 2024 and again failed to verify the leak had been resolved. The resident informed this service in September 2024 that the leak was still ongoing.
  14. From the evidence available to this service, it is clear that the resident spent unreasonable time chasing the landlord for updates, dealing with contractors, and attempting to drive the repairs forward. There was a lack of ownership over the repair and an evident lack of clarity regarding the status of repairs, what has been done and established, and what actions would be taken next to ensure the repair is effective and long-lasting.
  15. The landlord carried out 3 surveyor reports between April 2022 and April 2024. Each report shows gradual deterioration of the roof and confirms the leaks inside the property were ongoing and worsening. The mortar to brickwork was missing in 2022 and 2024. There were holes in the wall in 2023 and 2024, and there were missing bricks in 2024. None of the reports referenced any recent work on the roof.
  16. The resident provided pictures showing the property’s internal and external damage. The roof bricks disintegrated from the amount of water, with debris falling on the ground. The external walls and windows were saturated. The plaster inside both bedrooms was blown, exposing the bare walls in places. 
  17. The resident reported that apart from the inconvenience of having leaks in the front bedroom and the rear bedroom, the distress caused by having to call the landlord repeatedly, being put on hold for up to 45 minutes each time, and then having to explain the history of the repair time and time again was an ‘exasperating’ experience. She said that the landlord would leave scaffolding up for months at a time and send its operatives unannounced to the roof, meaning the occupants in the house would never be sure whether a contractor was working on the roof, or a stranger appeared outside their bedroom window.
  18. The resident also explained to the landlord on multiple occasions that her mother suffered from anxiety, and this was ‘triggering’ and ‘alarming’ for her. In September 2023, her mother was in intensive care and had been diagnosed with COPD. Her father was also diagnosed with COPD a few months later. In her opinion, this was related to breathing the damp plaster for years. None of the resident’s concerns resulted in an adequate response from the landlord.
  19. Overall, there was a series of failures to repair over an unreasonable period and a failure to identify learning from previously repeated errors. In not carrying out an effective and long-lasting repair to the guttering and roof line, the landlord failed to demonstrate it had due regard to the obligations placed on it under the Landlord and Tenant Act. The landlord failed in its repairing obligations. Furthermore, the lack of effective case management required an unreasonable level of involvement from the resident. There is also no evidence that the landlord considered the accumulative impact on the resident. The landlord’s failure to repair the leak amounted to severe maladministration.
  20. This service relied on the landlord’s compensation policy to calculate compensation in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. The landlord’s compensation policy says: 

a.     The landlord would pay compensation when it failed to follow its housing management policies and procedures, such as when there was a failure to identify the correct repair, carry out repairs satisfactorily, or complete repairs within agreed timescales.

b.     It would pay £25 compensation for missed appointments.

c.      In cases of damp, water leaks, neglect, or other issues where a repair has gone wrong, and the contractual deadline for completing the repair has passed, the landlord would pay compensation for the loss of room. Loss of a bedroom is calculated as 25% of the overall rent for the period affected.

  1. In recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by the loss of enjoyment of her home and loss of use of the room, this service calculated compensation based on 25% of the average weekly rent of £151.34 paid by the resident. For the 156 weeks from October 2021 until 4 weeks from the date of this report, we calculated a compensation of £5,901.48.
  2. With respect to the small room, there is no evidence that the room was severely affected to justify compensation based on the level of rent. However, we awarded an additional compensation of £1,000 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s failure to repair the leaks effectively.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

  1. The resident raised her formal complaint on 3 October 2021. Against a target of 10 working days, the landlord responded 20 working days later, on 24 October 2022.
  2. The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 24 October 2022. Against a target of 20 working days, the landlord responded 57 working days later, on 19 January 2023.
  3. The landlord’s compensation policy states that it would provide £20 for a delay in responding to a letter. The landlord offered the resident £50 in compensation at stage 1 for “delays”. At stage 2, it offered £70, of which £20 was in recognition of the delay in sending its stage 2 response.
  4. The landlord recognised the delay in both its responses. It explained its complaint policy to the resident which was appropriate. Its compensation offer was in line with its policy at that time. As such, the landlord offered reasonable redress for the shortcomings identified in its complaint handling.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration by the landlord in handling the resident’s reports of leaks from the roof.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation, which, in this Service’s opinion, resolves the complaint about the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint reasonably.

Orders

  1. To repair the leaks, the landlord must take the following actions, sending evidence to this service and the resident at each stage of the stages below:

a.     Within 4 weeks from the date of this report, the landlord must instruct an independent surveyor to inspect the resident’s property, identify the cause(s) of the leak(s) and set out what work is needed to permanently stop the leaks in the front and rear bedrooms.

b.     Within a further 4 weeks, the landlord must carry out the works recommended by the surveyor in full.

c.      Within a further 4 weeks, the landlord must repair and redecorate the damage caused by the leaks inside the resident’s property. If, at that time, the property remains damp and cannot be redecorated, the landlord must write to the resident and commit to carrying out the internal works in full by an agreed date.

d.     Within a further 2 weeks, the landlord is to post inspect and sign-off the completion of the works with the resident’s agreement.

  1. Within 4 weeks from the date of this report, the landlord’s director for housing must apologise to the resident in person for the failures identified in this report.
  2. The landlord must pay the resident directly total compensation of £6,901.48 comprising of:

a.     £5,901.48 in recognition of the loss of enjoyment of her home. This service calculated compensation based on 25% of the average weekly rent of £151.34 paid by the resident for the 156 weeks from October 2021 until 4 weeks from the date of this report.

b.     £1000 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the repair (this includes the £120 the landlord offered during its internal complaint process).

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54(g) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, a senior manager of the landlord must conduct a full case review. The Director for Housing should then present the review to its housing scrutiny committee within 12 weeks from the date of this report. A summary of the meeting in the form of minutes must be sent to this service within a further 2 weeks. The review must include the following (at the minimum):

a.     Identify the reason for the failures identified in this report and its proposal for changes needed to improve the performance of its contractors.

b.     Why there were so many repeated jobs and inspections booked without an effective repair being completed.

c.      Why it gave incorrect reasons to the resident about the delays to the works

d.     Why it failed to carry out sufficient post-inspections of works, even when disputed by the resident. 

e.     Set out a plan for change and service improvements including how and when it will measure the effectiveness of its suggested changes and when it will report back to committee.