Westminster City Council (202108189)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202108189

Westminster City Council

28 April 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 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 concerns the landlord’s handling of:
1. Repairs, following the resident’s report of a water leak from the property above.
2. The associated complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a tenant of the landlord.
The property is a ground floor flat, situated in a building comprised of similar properties.

Summary of events

The landlord’s internal records show that the resident reported a water leak, coming from the property above, into his bathroom on 14 November 2020. The landlord also noted that a plumber was needed, to trace the leak, and gain access to one of the properties above that the leak could have come from.
The resident emailed the landlord on 17 and 18 November 2020 to advise that he reported the water leak on 14 November 2020, and no one attended on that day. He made a further report on 15 November 2020, when an assessment was carried out and he was advised that someone would contact him.
On 3 December 2020, the resident wrote to the landlord, in respect of the ongoing water leak in his bathroom, to:
1. Note that three weeks had passed since his initial report.
2. Advise that a plumber needed to inspect three neighbouring properties, in order to locate the source of the leak.
3. Inform the landlord that he had sent letters to the occupiers of the properties in question, however, one of them was refusing to allow access to their property.
4. Contaminated water leaked into his bathroom each time the toilet/shower was used in the neighbouring properties, which affected his health and personal belongings.
5. He would withhold rent until the repair was completed.
The landlord replied on 7 December 2020 and advised that it was yet to obtain access to one of the properties it needed to investigate and that it had filed for an injunction to obtain access. This was followed up by an email, sent on 15 December 2020, in which the landlord provided details regarding the appointment it attended on 14 November 2020, and another appointment for which the date was not confirmed.
On 31 December 2020, the resident wrote to the landlord to advise it had been six weeks since he reported the water leak in his bathroom and reiterate that this was yet to be dealt with. The landlord requested confirmation of whether the resident was contacted by its surveyor team, in respect of the ongoing leak, on the same day.
The landlord’s internal communication, dated 31 December 2020, states that it had attended the premises on the day to deliver a letter to the occupier who refused access, that it would do the same on two more occasions the following weeks, and if these attempts failed it would then take legal action to gain access.
The landlord records, dated between 31 December 2020, and 12 January 2021, detailed its attempts to contact the occupier of the property above the resident’s both via telephone and in writing, and its decision to apply for an injunction to gain access to the property as the resident was “taking legal action”.
On 12 January 2021, the landlord issued a written warning to the resident’s neighbour, advising that it would apply for an injunction if the neighbour did not contact it by 15 January 2021.
The resident wrote to the landlord, in respect of the ongoing leak into his property, on 15 January 2021.
On 27 January 2021, the landlord issued a stage one complaint response, in which the landlord:
1. Acknowledged that the resident submitted his complaint on 31 December 2020, however, it did not view this until 13 January 2021 due to reduced capacity and a backlog of cases.
2. Confirmed it had gained access to one of the properties that the leak could have originated from but was yet to gain access to another property which it needed to assess.
3. Acknowledged it should have commenced the “non-contact” process to gain access to the neighbour’s property sooner.
4. Advised the resident it could not compensate him for impact of the leak and the delay in fixing it on health or damage to personal belongings.
5. Decided to partially uphold the resident’s complaint and offered compensation of £105 for the inconvenience caused and time spent by the resident chasing the repair.
The landlord issued two more written warnings to the resident’s neighbour on 3 and 9 February 2021.
On 9 February 2021 the resident wrote to the landlord to express his dissatisfaction with its stage one complaint response, and the fact that the leak was yet to be repaired. He asked for his complaint to be escalated to the second stage of the landlord’s complaints procedure.
On 12 February 2021, the landlord issued a final warning for access to the resident’s neighbour.
The resident escalated the matter to his local councillor on 7 March 2021, who subsequently contacted the landlord. The landlord confirmed its actions and attempts to gain access to two of the properties above the resident on 16 March 2021.
On 16 March 2021, the landlord discussed obtaining injunctions for both properties located above the resident’s as one neighbour had refused access from the start and the second neighbour refused to allow it to carry out further investigations.
The landlord’s internal communication, dated 26 March 2021, confirmed that the resident’s property was affected by two leaks.
On 1 April 2021, the landlord confirmed that it gained access to one of the properties above the resident’s and that remedial works were due to be carried out the same day; however, it was later confirmed that the “leaking pipework” was “removed and replaced” on 8 April 2021.
Landlord internal communication, dated 15 April 2021, states that on 9 April 2021 it arranged for a “decoration of the whole bathroom and renewal of the rotten duct” to be carried out in the resident’s property; however, the this was not undertaken yet as the area needed to dry out first. On 19 April 2021, the landlord confirmed it would renew the duct cover and bath panel on 27 April 2021, and undertake redecoration works of the entire bathroom on 11 May 2021.
On 4 May 2021, the landlord issued a stage two complaint response in which it:
1. Apologised for the inconveniences caused.
2. Confirmed that it gained access to the property where the leak originated from on 8 April 2021 and completed the remedial works on 9 April 2021.
3. Confirmed it repaired the resident’s bath panel on 27 April 2021 and was due to complete painting and decoration works on 11 March 2021.
4. Increased its offer of compensation to a total of £455 which was broken into £190 for the delay in resolving the leak, £190 for the inconvenience caused, and £75 for the time and trouble spent by the resident chasing this issue.
The landlord’s internal communication, dated 23 June 2021, states that it could not gain access to the resident’s property on 11 May 2021, however, it attended on 15 June 2021 and scraped down, filled, stain blocked and painted the walls and ceiling in the resident’s bathroom. It was further noted that the skirting boards also needed to be filed, sanded and painted and the duct to be renewed.
The resident wrote to this Service on 6 July 2021 to advise he was unhappy with the outcome offered by his landlord and that he was seeking compensation of £1574.77.
The landlord’s communication records show that on 12 July 2021, an appointment was arranged for 27 July 2021 for further works to be carried out to the resident’s bathroom.

Assessment and findings

The complaints policy

The landlord operates a two stage complaints procedure in which the landlord commits to acknowledge complaints within two calendar days and respond to within ten working days. The timescales apply to both stage one and two complaints.
In instances where it cannot adhere to the response timescales set in its complaints policy the landlord commits to providing the resident with a holding letter explaining the reasons for the delay.

The compensation policy

The landlord divides compensation payments into three categories – statutory, discretionary, and one-off compensation payments and out of pocket expenses.
In its compensation policy, the landlord offers the following one-off compensation rates:
1. Time and trouble in pursuing a complaint – payments range between £50 and £250, pro-rated per year and depending on the impact on the resident.
2. Delays in carrying out repairs – payments range between £500 and £2000, pro-rated per year and depending on the impact on the resident.
3. Distress and/or inconvenience – payments range between £500 and £2000, pro-rated per year and depending on the impact on the resident.

The landlord’s handling of repairs following the resident’s report of a water leak

The resident has stated that he considers the issues affecting his property have exacerbated his medical conditions. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments about his health, it is beyond the authority of this Service to make a determination on whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s handling of his reports concerning a water leak and the associated repairs and the resident’s medical condition. The resident therefore may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if he considers that his health has been affected by any action or lack thereof by the landlord. However, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience the resident experienced.
Furthermore, it is noted that the above principle applies to the resident’s claim for compensation for damage to his personal possessions. The landlord provided him with advice on how to proceed with his claims relating to impact on health and damage to personal belongings, which was reasonable as its compensation policy does not cover such payments because they are better suited to being dealt with as an insurance or legal claim.
The resident contacted the landlord to report that he was experiencing a water leak in his bathroom on 14 November 2021. Despite the landlord attending the resident’s property on various occasions since his initial report the water leak was not resolved until 9 April 2021. Considering the nature of the repair issue it is clear that the amount of time taken to carry out the required remedial works was unreasonable and caused inconvenience to the resident. The landlord does not dispute this and fully acknowledged its delays. More so, the landlord kept in contact with the resident throughout this period of time and updated him on the actions it took to gain access to two other properties that were linked to the leak.
This Service appreciates the inconvenience experienced by the resident, and the landlord’s efforts to gain access to the neighbouring properties to resolve the issue. In this instance it is clear that the landlord was not entirely responsible for the delay to completing the remedial works because it experienced difficulties in gaining access to the two properties above the resident. Furthermore, it is noted that the landlord has a responsibility to act in a fair and impartial manner towards all of its residents, meaning that it could not force entry to the neighbouring properties immediately and had to follow a non-contact procedure, which led to the delays which inconvenienced the resident. However, considering that the resident reported the water leak on 14 November 2020, the fact that the landlord did not issue a final warning, in respect of its application for an injunction, until 12 February 2021, was unreasonable in this instance. The landlord should have taken formal action to gain access to the neighbouring property sooner, particularly because the resident experienced contaminated water in his bathroom for a prolonged amount of time.
The resident made reports of large amounts of contaminated dirty water (sometimes hot water) leaking into his bathroom on a daily basis coming from his neighbour’s toilet/shower and the resident raised sanitary concerns caused by the contaminated water from the onset of the leak. Following the landlord eventually gaining access to the neighbour’s property above, evidence provided to the Service indicates works were done to sort a leak.
The Service notes that during the time that the resident experienced the leak, there is no evidence to indicate the landlord took any actions to inspect the level of contamination or ensure that the resident’s property was kept as sanitary as possible particularly due to the concerns around the suspected source of the leak. Interim assistance such as arranging deep cleaning and disinfecting of the bathroom would have assisted in reducing the impact of the leak. There is no evidence to demonstrate how the resident was supported by the landlord with the leak in his own property during the period that the landlord was unable to gain access to the neighbour’s property.
As such, whilst reasonable redress was provided in regard to the delay in repairing the leak and the time the resident spent chasing the complaint, the amount of compensation provided to cover the inconvenience caused by this issue was insufficient. It was not reasonable for the resident to be left in unsanitary conditions for the period of time that it took the landlord to repair the leak.
The landlord proceeded to act in a reasonable manner once it gained access to the neighbouring property from, on 8 April 2021. It completed the remedial works the following day and then proceeded to arrange for further remedial works to be carried to the resident’s bathroom.
It is noted that in its stage two complaint response, on 4 May 2021, the landlord made a compensation offer of £455, which was broken down into £75 to compensate for the time the resident spent chasing the complaint, £190 to compensate for its delay to remedy the water leak, and £190 for the inconvenience caused by this. This Service appreciates that the resident was unhappy with the landlord’s offer as the amount he sought was £1574.77. Whilst the Service is unable to make a decision on the landlord liability with regards to damaged goods and the impact to health, it is clear that the resident did suffer substantial inconvenience due to the matter and further compensation is due.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

The resident lodged a formal stage one complaint on 31 December 2020, for which the landlord issued a stage one complaint response on 27 January 2021. This Service appreciates that the landlord was experiencing a backlog of complaints at the time. However, this does not change the fact that it did not comply with its complaints policy because it failed to issue a formal complaint acknowledgement and adhere to the response timeframes set in its complaints policy, detailed above.
The resident then requested for his complaint to be escalated to the second stage of the landlord’s complaints procedure on 9 February 2021. The landlord failed to adhere to its complaints procedure in this instance as well because it did not issue a formal escalation acknowledgement, it did not adhere to its response timeframe of ten working days set in its complaints policy, nor did it issue a holding letter to advise the resident of the delay and reason behind this.
To conclude, while this Service appreciates the landlord’s explanation that it had backlogs of complaints, it is clear that there was service failure in its handling of the resident’s complaint because it failed to adhere to the response timeframes set in its complaints policy, and also failed to issue complaint acknowledgements or a holding letter.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the residents reports of a water leak.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Reasons

The landlord carried out the repairs in a reasonable manner, once it was allowed access to the other two properties involved. However, during the period it was unable to gain access to the neighbour’s property, the landlord failed to support the resident with regards to managing the contaminated leak into his property.
The landlord failed to adhere to the response timeframes set in its complaints policy, and also failed to issue complaint acknowledgements and a holding letter. The landlord should pay compensation in view of these failings, as set out below.

Orders

The Ombudsman orders the landlord to:
1. Pay the amount of £455 that it initially offered the resident if it has not done so already.
2. Pay an additional £400 for the failure to assist the resident with his living conditions during the period it was unable to gain access to the neighbour’s flat to repair the leak.
3. Pay the resident an additional £100 to compensate for its failures in complaint handling.
The amount of £400 and £100 were calculated in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s remedies guidance and is to be paid to in full within four weeks from the date of this letter.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord review its staff’s training needs in relation to complaint handling and compensation, which should include consideration of this Service’s remedies guidance at https://www.housing-ombudsman.org.uk/about-us/corporate-information/policies/dispute-resolution/policy-on-remedies/, and the completion of our free online dispute resolution training for landlords at https://www.housing-ombudsman.org.uk/landlords-info/e-learning/, if this has not been done recently.
The Ombudsman recommends the landlord obtains receipts from the resident which evidence the cost he spent to clean the property and consider reimbursing him for those costs.