Westminster City Council (202016964)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202016964

Westminster City Council

29 November 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
    1. The resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property.
    2. The remedial work needed to windows in the property.
    3. The associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord.
  2. This Service has provided a previous determination in relation to the damp and mould in the property; this was issued on 31 July 2019 case reference 201711988. This Service made a determination of maladministration for the landlord’s handling of the damp and mould in the property, its complaint handling, and its record keeping. The landlord was ordered to identify any remedial works needed in the property, and to provide the resident with an action plan. This case will investigate the landlord’s actions following our previous determination.
  3. Following the landlord being ordered to identify any outstanding works, it attended the property on 6 September 2019 and identified damp in the hallway, dining room and kitchen.
  4. The resident raised an initial complaint on 25 March 2021. The complaint was about the landlord delaying the remedial works needed in the property due to the Covid-19 pandemic. The resident was unhappy that the landlord had concluded that the damp and mould issue had been resolved as she believed it was still present in the bathroom The resident also complained that the dining room window was still rotten with damp and mould and the kitchen window was in a state of disrepair and needed replacing.. The resident was seeking compensation.
  5. The works in relation to the damp at the property were ultimately completed in September 2021. The resident reported that the damp and mould was still present in the bathroom and bedroom of the property following the remedial works.
  6. The landlord also identified remedial work that needed to be completed to a window in the property on 21 May 2021. The landlord had initially been advised to replace the window, and raised an repair for this on 17 September 2021, however, after seeking a second opinion in October 2021, the window was found to be repairable and so again. It ultimately decided to install secondary glazing at the property, which it installed on 18 May 2022.
  7. There were several periods of delays during both aspects of the remedial work, including delays due to the Covid-19 pandemic, a backlog of works following the pandemic, the landlord being unable to gain access to the property, and the resident asking for the works to be postponed.
  8. In the landlord’s final response on 6 April 2022, it advised that the damp and mould works had been delayed until June 2021 because of a backlog of jobs due to the Covid-19 pandemic. It informed the resident that no damp had been found in the bedroom or bathroom of the property, but that it would renew the sealant around the bath and wash basin and that an extractor fan would be installed. It advised that, after further inspections, the window could be repaired. It also advised that it would install secondary glazing to the windows at the front of the property. It apologised it did not investigate the issues sooner, and partially upheld the resident’s complaint.
  9. The resident was unhappy with the delays in remedial work which the landlord had advised was due to Covid-19. She was also dissatisfied as she believed there was still damp and mould in the bathroom and bedroom of the property. She was seeking to be reimbursed for the cost of her bedroom being redecorated and believed the window should have been replaced rather than repaired.
  10. This Service asked the landlord to confirm whether the extractor fan had been installed, whether the window repairs were the final works needed to resolve the issues, and whether the bathroom works had been completed; however, no response was received.

Assessment and findings

Scope of Investigation

  1. The resident has informed this Service that she paid for her bedroom to be redecorated and is seeking for the landlord to reimburse the associated costs. The resident also informed this Service that for a period of time she was without heating or hot water in the property. As these are separate issues to the complaint raised with the Service, this is not something that this Service can adjudicate on at this stage, as the landlord needs to be provided with the opportunity to investigate and respond to this aspect. The resident will need to contact the landlord and, if appropriate, raise a separate complaint to get this matter resolved.

Policies and Procedures

  1. The landlord’s ‘Tenant’s Handbook’ states that non-urgent repairs will be completed within 28 working days. It also states that residents are responsible for providing access at reasonable times for repairs to be carried out. It states that examples of non-urgent work are Damp and Mould treatment and repairs to joinery items such as windows (where there is no security risk).
  2. The landlord’s complaints policy states that a stage one response will be sent within ten working days, and a stage two response will be sent within twenty working days. It states that if a longer timeframe was needed in order to respond, it would provide a holding response to the resident which would include the reason for the delay, and when the response should be sent by.

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

  1. Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 places a statutory obligation on the landlord to keep the structure and exterior of the property in repair. The landlord also has a responsibility under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System, introduced by The Housing Act 2004, to assess hazards and risks within its rented properties. Damp and mould growth are a potential hazard and therefore the landlord is required to consider whether any damp and mould problems in its properties amount to a hazard and require remedying.
  2. As stated in the Housing Ombudsman’s Spotlight on Damp & Mould (2021), ‘Landlords should ensure they have strategies in place to manage these types of cases with an emphasis on ensuring that the resident is kept informed, feels that the landlord is taking the issue seriously and that the matter is progressing’.
  3. Following our Determination and orders on the resident’s previous complaint, the landlord attended the property on 6 September 2019 and identified damp in the hallway, dining room and kitchen of the property. It completed remedial works to the property in September 2021, and following this has advised that after it completed an investigation, no further damp and mould had been found in the property.
  4. Whilst from the evidence provided it appears that the landlord completed the necessary works to resolve the issues of damp and mould within the property, the landlord did not complete the works within a timely manner.
  5. Following the visit at the property on 6 September 2019, the landlord acted appropriately by raising the necessary works; however, it did not offer a start date until 13 January 2020. This was outside of the appropriate timeframe of 28 working days as listed in the ‘Tenant’s Handbook’ provided by the landlord. It would have also have been appropriate for the landlord to have considered an earlier start date given this service’s previous finding of maladministration and the landlord having been ordered to identify any remedial works needed in the property to resolve the damp and mould and to provide the resident with an action plan of works.
  6. The landlord attended the property on 3 February 2020 and 14 April 2020 to complete remedial works such as tidying grout in the bathroom, following which it attended the property to complete a follow-on inspection to assess whether there was damp and mould in the bathroom. The landlord ultimately marked these works as completed in September 2021.
  7. Given that the works needed in the property were identified on 6 September 2019 and that the damp and mould posed a potential health and safety risk, the landlord should have ensured that the works were completed within a reasonable time and within the 28 day timeframe listed within its repairs policy. In this case, the landlord took over 24 months to complete the necessary works, exceeding the timeframe set out in its policy by a considerable length of time and causing unnecessary delay, inconvenience and upset to the resident.
  8. It is not disputed that there were delays throughout the process of remedial works, some of which were outside of the landlord’s control. The landlord has advised that due to Covid-19 restrictions, which were implemented in March 2020, there were delays in the remedial works taking place. This Service acknowledges that the pandemic may have resulted in delays which were outside of the landlord’s control. However, due to the serious nature of damp and mould, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to prioritise the work where possible and to ensure the resident was updated regularly. From the evidence provided, the landlord did not prioritise these works as it should have, and as a result, this exacerbated the impact on the resident as she continued to chase the works. There is also no evidence that the landlord adequately considered the potential risks to the resident throughout this process.
  9. The landlord advised that, following the lockdown restrictions being lifted, there was a backlog of works, which meant that the works needed in relation to the damp in the property would start in June 2021. This Service understands that in some instances, remedial works would have been delayed for such reasons. However, in such circumstances the landlord would have been expected to communicate this effectively with the resident and to provide regular updates on the works. From the evidence provided to this Service, the landlord did not appear to maintain effective communication which exacerbated both the delays, and the impact it had on the resident.
  10. The landlord did attempt to attend the property on several occasions to complete remedial work including on 28 June 2021 and on 5 July 2021 where the resident requested for the works to be postponed. In addition, there also appears to have been delays caused by the landlord being unable to gain access to the property, or the resident refusing access such as on 10 December 2020 and 24 May 2021. The resident has an obligation to allow the landlord and its operatives access for any necessary remedial works as stated in the Tenant’s Handbook, and therefore these delays were also outside of the landlord’s control.
  11. The landlord stated that whilst no further damp and mould had been found in the property, it had noticed black marks on the sealant in the bathroom and would therefore renew the sealant. In addition, it stated it would install an extractor fan in the property to assist with the issue. As part of our investigation, we asked the landlord to provide an update on whether these works had been completed but did not receive a response. The Housing Ombudsman’s scheme states in paragraph 10 that a landlord must provide copies of any information requested by the Ombudsman that is, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, relevant to the complaint. This may include policies, procedures, internal files, documents or records. The landlord must provide the requested information within a reasonable timescale. Therefore, this Service has been unable to determine whether the landlord ultimately put things right, and acted in line with its policies or not, this constitutes a service failing on the landlord’s behalf.
  12. This Service recommends compensation of £100 to £600 in cases where a landlord has made some attempt to put things right but the offer was not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation. In this case, whilst the landlord had ultimately put things right by completing works to the damp identified in the property in September 2021, and completed a further inspection which resulted in it offering to renew the sealant in the bathroom and to provide the resident with an extractor fan, this Service had been unable to determine whether it completed this and therefore compensation is due in view of this. In addition, whilst the delays were, on occasion, outside of the landlord’s control, the overall delays in the remedial work taking place were not appropriate, and compensation is due in view of this.
  13. Therefore, it is the opinion of this Service that compensation of £250 would provide adequate redress for the landlord’s failings in relation to how it handled the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property and the delays in the remedial work taking place. It would also be appropriate for the landlord to ensure that any remedial works that were offered to the resident have been completed, and if not, to create an action plan and complete the works within four weeks of the date of this letter.

The landlord’s handling of the remedial work needed to windows in the property

  1. The resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s decision to repair a window at the property, rather than replacing it, as a contractor had initially recommended. The resident believed that due to the window’s condition, it should have been replaced. The landlord sought a second opinion in relation to the condition of the window, which advised that the window was not beyond repair. It is the role of this Service to determine whether the landlord acted appropriately throughout this process and in line with any relevant policies.
  2. It is not unreasonable for a landlord to rely on a second opinion when considering remedial works needed in a property, especially if this would provide the same outcome but in a more cost-efficient way. Landlords have a limited budget and therefore are entitled to explore all of the available options before deciding which course of remedial works to take.
  3. The landlord had initially been advised to replace the window, and raised an repair for this on 17 September 2021, however, after seeking a second opinion in October 2021 advised that the window could be repaired. Whilst the landlord was entitled to request a second opinion and entitled to decide which opinion it decided to rely on, it should have communicated any reasoning behind a change in the decision to the resident in order to appropriately manage her expectations. In this case, there was a clear lack of communication between the landlord and resident in relation to the remedial works needed.
  4. The landlord has stated the window repairs needed at the property were identified on 21 May 2021 and, following this, an operative attended; but due to not having the materials needed, the work order was closed. The landlord acted appropriately by querying why the operative would do this and re-raised the works on 24 May 2021. Whilst this did lead to a delay in the remedial works being completed, the delay was minimal and did not impact the overall length of the remedial works.
  5. Subsequently, the landlord arranged for the works to be completed on 5 July 2021. This would have been a total of 29 working days following the repair being re-raised, which would have been one working day outside of the appropriate timeframe as listed in the ‘Tenant’s Handbook’ provided by the landlord.
  6. However, evidence provided to this Service suggests that on 5 July 2021 the resident requested for the works to be postponed. The landlord re-arranged the works for 12 July 2021 which is evidence that the landlord was trying to accommodate the resident and act fairly throughout the process. Therefore, this delay was outside of the landlord’s control as it is the resident’s responsibility to provide access to the landlord for any necessary works.
  7. In addition, the landlord has stated that following the surveyor’s report in October 2021, it raised the works on 3 November 2021. It stated it contacted the resident on 9 November 2021 to offer her an appointment on 12 November 2021 and 8 December 2021 but the resident advised the appointments were not suitable. The resident did accept an appointment on 10 January 2022 but was dissatisfied with the delay. This is evidence that the landlord had attempted to put things right at an earlier stage, and it was outside of the landlord’s control that the dates were not suitable for the resident.
  8. Furthermore, whilst it is not wholly clear from the evidence provided whether the appointment on 10 January 2022 went ahead, the resident refused further works on 28 February 2022 due to her dissatisfaction with the landlord repairing the window rather than replacing it. This is further evidence of a delay which was outside of the landlord’s control. However, it is also evidence of poor record-keeping as this Service was unable to determine any events which were due to take place on 10 January 2022.
  9. Between January and April 2022, the landlord continued to discuss the best option to complete the remedial work needed to the window to try and ensure that the property was not as cold, however, there is no evidence to show any progress in remedial works. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to provide the resident with regular updates at an appropriate frequency to ensure her expectations were managed. Additionally, the remedial works had continued to exceed the appropriate timescale of 28 working days as listed in the ‘Tenant’s Handbook’ as provided by the landlord.
  10. Ultimately, the landlord decided to install secondary glazing to the windows at the property on 18 May 2022. From the evidence provided it is not clear whether this resolved the issues or whether the landlord also decided to complete any further works to the windows. As part of the investigation by this Service, the landlord was requested to provide an update on these matters; however, no response was received. Therefore, as this Service was unable to determine whether the issue had been resolved, it constitutes a failing on the landlord’s behalf.
  11. This Service recommends compensation of £100 to £600 in cases where a landlord has made some attempt to put things right but the offer was not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation. In this case, the landlord had clearly attempted to put things right by completing remedial works needed to the windows in the property. Whilst this Service acknowledges that some of the delays were outside of the landlord’s control, there were occasions where the landlord failed to act within the timeframes listed within its policy. Likewise, the landlord failed to comply with the information request sent by this Service which was further evidence of the landlord’s lack of communication and poor record-keeping.
  12. Therefore, it is the opinion of this Service that compensation of £150 would provide adequate redress for the failings identified throughout this investigation. It would also be appropriate for the landlord to ensure that all remedial works it had agreed to were completed, and if not, to ensure they are completed within four weeks of the date of this letter.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

  1. The stage one complaint was raised by this Service on behalf of the resident on 25 March 2021. The landlord requested a copy of the previous determination on this case due to a change in management which was provided. This is evidence of poor record-keeping from the landlord as it should ensure that it maintains an accurate and comprehensive record of complaints for a reasonable period of time regardless of any staff changes.
  2. The landlord responded on 14 April 2021 which was a total of 12 working days from the complaint being raised and outside of the timeframe listed in the landlord’s complaints policy. Whilst this Service acknowledges that this delay was only two working days, the landlord had ultimately failed to act in line with its policy and the Complaint Handling Code provided by this Service.
  3. Following this, this Service asked the landlord to escalate the complaint on the resident’s behalf on 10 May 2021. Due to no response or update being provided, this Service asked the landlord to escalate the complaint again on 24 June 2021. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge the complaint within two working days, as listed in its complaints policy.
  4. Between 25 June 2021 and 29 July 2021, the landlord continued to request the reasons for the complaint escalation from the resident. On 29 July 2021, the landlord advised this Service that it had closed the complaint due to no response from the resident. It also stated that if the resident contacted the landlord, it would re-open the case. The resident informed this Service on 6 September 2021 that she had provided her points of escalation but had not received a response. Following this Service reviewing the case on 11 October 2021, it was decided that the landlord should have been chased initially for the response as it would have been possible for it to provide a response without the escalation points being needed. Therefore, this Service acknowledges that the delay in the escalation request was somewhat contributed to by this Service not chasing the response initially for which this Service apologises.
  5. Following the review by this Service, the landlord was chased for its stage two response on 24 November 2021 and 7 December 2021. However, the landlord contacted this Service on 8 December 2021 to advise that these chasers were being sent to an incorrect email address. The landlord was then provided with a final chaser on 3 March 2022. The landlord responded on 6 April 2022. Whilst this Service acknowledges the confusion in relation to the complaint escalation which did exacerbate the complaint handling delays, the landlord could have escalated the complaint at the time based on the resident’s dissatisfaction rather than continuing to request the escalation points.
  6. In addition, following this Service providing the landlord with a final chaser on 3 March 2022 to the correct address, it took a total of 24 working days to provide the resident with a stage two response. This was not in line with the appropriate timeframe of 20 working days, as listed in the landlord’s complaints policy, and in the Complaint Handling Code provided by this Service. Given that there had been considerable delays throughout the complaints process, this additional delay was inappropriate and exacerbated the impact on the resident.
  7. Overall, whilst some of the delays during the complaints process for this case were outside of the landlord’s control, the landlord acknowledged that it could have investigated the complaint at an earlier stage. However, there were further failings identified by this Service during this investigation such as the landlord’s poor record-keeping and its failure to at appropriate and comply with its own complaints policy, and the Complaint Handling Code provided by this Service. In addition, it failed to offer the resident any redress in order to put things right. Given the failings listed above, and the landlord’s omission to consider a fair and reasonable level of redress, compensation is due.
  8. This Service recommends compensation of £100 to £600 in cases where the landlord has acknowledged some, but not all, of its failings and where the landlord has made some attempt to put things right but failed to address the detriments to the resident. In this case, the landlord did acknowledge that it could have investigated the complaint at an earlier stage, and apologised for this, but failed to acknowledge or put right the failings identified above. Therefore, it is the opinion of this Service that compensation of £150 would provide adequate redress for the landlord’s complaint handling failures.

Determination

  1.  In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in the way it handled the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property.
  2.  In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in the way it handled the remedial work needed to windows in the property.
  3.  In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in the way it handled the associated complaint.

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident a total of £550 compensation, this is made up of:
    1. £100 for the landlord’s failure to provide the evidence requested in relation to the completion of works in the resident’s bathroom.
    2. £150 for the landlord’s poor record-keeping and delays in how it handled the resident’s reports of damp and mould within the property,
    3. £50 for its failure to provide evidence in relation to whether the second-glazing at the property resolved the issue or whether it opted to carry out further works,
    4. £100 for its delays and lack of communication throughout the process of remedial works in relation to the window in the resident’s property and,
    5. £150 for the landlord’s poor complaint handling.
  2. The landlord is ordered to carry out a further inspection of the resident’s property to investigate any further concerns the resident has regarding damp and mould in the property and to ensure that any outstanding works it has agreed to, including those to the window, have now been completed. The landlord is to prepare a report of its findings and an action plan, confirming the timescales within which any necessary repairs will be completed. The landlord should provide this information in writing to both the resident and this Service for our records.
  3. The landlord is to confirm to this service that it has complied will all of the above orders within four weeks of the date of this determination.

Recommendations

  1. To reduce the likelihood of a similar situation occurring in the future, it is recommended that the landlord carry out a review of its record keeping and consider additional training around the way in which repairs, complaints and any communication with residents is recorded.
  2. It is recommended that the landlord review its staff training in relation to complaint handling in order to ensure that complaints are dealt with in line with its expectations, policies and the guidance provided by this Service in the Complaint Handling Code.