Landlords can now complete the Complaint Handling Code Annual Submissions form. More information is available online.

Westminster City Council (202115189)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202115189

Westminster City Council

31 March 2022


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 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 response to the resident’s reports of noise from the water supply to her property and its repairs and compensation for this.

Background

  1. The resident is a leaseholder of the property, which is a flat within a block of similar properties. The landlord is the freeholder of the building, and the resident sub-lets her property to tenants.
  2. The resident initially reported that her tenants were reporting a water–related noise in the property in March 2021. An inspection took place after she reported this to the landlord in April 2021, and the contractor recommended that a valve in an internal cupboard be changed and that the stopcock be replaced for this, for which a survey and works were ordered in May 2021. In June 2021, the survey took place and the issue was thought to be caused by a stopcock on the external wall outside the resident’s property. Following this, it was established by the landlord that the water provider would need to attend to rectify a repair fault on a street valve, so that the water supply to the building could be isolated before the stopcock could be replaced.
  3. The resident raised a stage one and final stage complaints with the landlord in July and August 2021, respectively, due to the length of time it was taking to resolve the noise issue. She noted that the issue was having a detrimental effect on her tenants’ physical and mental health due to lack of sleep, and she felt that the landlord had not considered the matter with any urgency. The resident said she had needed to chase responses from the landlord, and was compensating her tenants £650 per month due to the noise issue.
  4. In response to the resident’s complaints, in July and September 2021 the landlord detailed the record of events and apologised for the delays which had occurred. It acknowledged that there had been a delay in arranging follow-on works following an inspection on 26 April 2021, and it explained that there had been additional delays as the water provider had needed to carry out maintenance work, as it could not proceed until this was completed. The landlord explained that it had needed to communicate with the water provider and their subcontractors in relation to the work, as they were required to confirm responsibility for the renewal of the defective valve.
  5. There had additionally been communication delays with the water provider recorded, which were outside of the landlord’s control. It apologised to the resident for its repair delays, lack of communication and the effect of the noise on her tenants, and it provided her with information relating to the buildings insurance so that she could claim for her lost rental income. The landlord also offered her £392 compensation in recognition of the delays to the repairs, the distress and inconvenience caused, the time and trouble she had spent, and its lack of communication. It confirmed that the stopcock was due to be replaced on 8 September 2021.
  6. The landlord’s records showed that, following the replacement of the stopcock, the resident continued to report the noise in September to October 2021. Further investigations and works were carried out by the water provider during that period, as a leak was found on the external water supply to the building. This was rectified on 14 October 2021 by the water provider, for which the landlord recorded the resident as having confirmed as resolving the noise issue, and that it had agreed to let her withhold her block repairs and maintenance charge of £26 per month for until this resolution.
  7. The resident then referred her complaint to this Service, as she remained dissatisfied with the level of compensation offered by the landlord, and she felt that it should compensate her for her loss of rental income since March 2021. She also remained dissatisfied that she had still needed to pay most of her service charges to it since then, and she wanted additional compensation for or a reimbursement of these.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has said that she has lost rental income, as her tenants had reported that the noise issues affecting the property have impacted their health. The Ombudsman does not doubt her comments. However, it is beyond the authority or expertise of this Service to decide on whether there was a direct link between the noise experienced and her loss of income or the tenants’ health, or to determine liability and award damages for these in the way that a court or insurer might. While we cannot consider the lost income or effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident and her tenants experienced as a result of any errors by the landlord.
  2. The resident has also raised concerns about the remainder of the service charges that she had needed to pay to the landlord during the time that the noise issue was ongoing, and she believes that she should be compensated for these or that they should be refunded to her. However, in line with the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, we will not consider complaints that concern the level of service charges. Complaints that relate to the level, reasonableness, or liability to pay service charges are instead within the jurisdiction of the courts and tribunals rather than this Service.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of noise, its handling of repairs and the level of compensation offered

  1. The resident’s lease and the landlord’s leaseholder handbook confirm that it would be responsible for the repair and maintenance of the building’s structure and communal services, including the replacement of any stopcocks to the block or communal water pipes. Its website confirms that emergency repairs should be made safe within 24 hours and further follow-on appointments may be needed to rectify the problem on another day. Non-emergency repairs or routine repairs are not given a specified timescale in the landlord’s handbook but should usually be completed within a timely manner.
  2. In this case, it is not disputed that there was a significant delay in rectifying the noise issue at the resident’s property between April and October 2021. It should be noted that it can take more than one attempt to resolve issues such as noise within a water system, and in some cases different repairs may need to be attempted before the matter is resolved. This would not necessarily constitute a service failure by the landlord. The Ombudsman cannot comment on what repairs would be appropriate and the landlord was entitled to rely on the opinions of its qualified staff and contractors when deciding what work to undertake, in the absence of any other expert evidence to the contrary.
  3. The case was further complicated by the need to involve the water company, and their third-party subcontractors, to complete a repair to the street valve and isolate the water supply prior to any remedial works being carried out by the landlord, over which it had no control.
  4. It is understandable that the resident and her tenants experienced frustration as a result of the delays in resolving the noise issue at her property over approximately six months. However, the landlord had limited control over the delays caused by the water provider’s and their subcontractors’ communication. Although it would have been expected to provide the resident with regular updates on its progress, she needed to follow-up with it on multiple occasions for updates. It is noted that the replacement of the external stopcock on 8 September 2021 was initially reported to have resolved the issue, but this was not successful and further works by the water provider were required. Ultimately, as the water provider was responsible for the remaining repair, any further delay was outside of the landlord’s control.
  5. It is noted that the resident asked to be compensated for her loss of rental income for the period in question. The landlord therefore acted appropriately by providing the details of the buildings insurance provider to her, so that she could raise a claim for this, in accordance with her lease and its leaseholder handbook. Landlords should have insurance policies to cover the cost of liability claims, and the landlord would not be expected to consider a claim for loss of rental income outside of the insurance process, but it was instead obliged by the lease and handbook to have buildings insurance. The Ombudsman cannot investigate the actions of its insurer, and therefore we cannot comment further or the insurance process or the outcome of any insurance claim.
  6. Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in all the circumstances of her case. In considering this the Ombudsman considers whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line its compensation and payment schemes and our remedies guidance and dispute resolution principles for it to be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes. The landlord acted fairly in acknowledging its mistakes and apologising to the resident for its lack of communication, the effect of the noise on her tenants, and the delays in arranging for the works to take place. It put things right by offering her £392 compensation.
  7. The compensation award was in line with the landlord’s compensation and payment schemes and the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance. The latter states that amounts in this range are proportionate where there have been considerable failures over a considerable period of time to act in accordance with policy, or a resident repeatedly having to chase responses and seek correction of mistakes, necessitating an unreasonable level of involvement by them.
  8. The landlord offered the resident compensation that the Ombudsman considers was proportionate to the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident in relation to its failings in respect of the repair delays from April to May and June to September 2021, and the lack of communication, which it had control over. This is because it recognised these failures, and the time and trouble taken by her to pursue them, with a level of compensation that accorded with its compensation and payment schemes and our remedies guidance.
  9. For the reasons set out above, the landlord has offered redress to the resident that resolves the complaint satisfactorily. The measures taken by it to put right what went wrong were proportionate to the impact that its failures had on her, and it showed that it learnt from the outcome of the case by continuing to liaise with the water provider until the noise issue was resolved, which was appropriate.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the resident prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint about its response to her reports of noise from the water supply to her property and its repairs and compensation for this satisfactorily.

Recommendation

  1. It is recommended that the landlord re-offer the resident the £392 compensation that it previously awarded her, if she has not received this already.