Westminster City Council (202111805)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202111805

Westminster City Council

10 November 2022

 

Our approach

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction and is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. The Ombudsman must determine whether a complaint comes within their jurisdiction. The Ombudsman seeks to resolve disputes wherever possible but cannot investigate complaints that fall outside of this. 

In deciding whether a complaint falls within their jurisdiction, the Ombudsman will carefully consider all the evidence provided by the parties and the circumstances of the case.

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to repairs to a leasehold property.

Determination (jurisdictional decision)

  1. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
  2. After carefully considering all the evidence, I have determined that the complaint, as set out above, is not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Summary of events

  1. The property in this case is a two bedroomed ground floor flat “in a Victorian street”. In August 2020 it was flooded by sewage which permeated the property through the shower plugs and via a manhole in the entrance hall. This was reported to the landlord, as was the fact that there were various damp patches in the property that needed investigating.
  2. Remedial works were identified in respect of both aspects, and it was asserted they were the responsibility of the landlord under the terms of a Lease dated 11 September 1989.
  3. On 10 May 2021 a complaint was made to the landlord regarding its handling of the works. The occupant complained that the property had been uninhabitable since the original flood and remedial works for all aspects had been delayed. She reported the property was “extremely damp and foul smelling”. Finally, she asserted that the landlord’s communication had been poor, leaving her stressed and frustrated.
  4. During the complaint process the property suffered from further water ingress with associated damage, including to flooring that had been renewed under an insurance claim (following the original events). A claim for compensation was made for that damage and generally for the impact upon the occupant for the landlord’s alleged failings.
  5. In its complaint response the landlord admitted significant delays in dealing with various aspects of the remedial works. In its defense it noted that the situation had been compounded by both pandemic restrictions and by the need to gain the co-operation of the owner of a neighbouring property who had proved difficult to engage with. It offered compensation as a result of its admitted service failings, although it asserted that some items needed to be recouped via a further insurance claim.
  6. The occupant was dissatisfied with this response and with the level of compensation offered and referred the matter to this Service for review.

Reasons

  1. Paragraph 25 of the Scheme states that: –
    1. “The following people can make complaints to the Ombudsman about members: (a) a person who is or has been in a landlord/tenant relationship with a member. This includes people who have a lease, tenancy, license to occupy, service agreement or other arrangement to occupy premises owned or managed by a member. If the complaint is made by an ex-occupier, they must have had a legal relationship with the member at the time that the matter complained of arose.”
  2. The landlord’s records show the lease was held in the name of a company with the occupier confirmed as the owner of that company. As stated above, it was the occupier who dealt with the landlord regarding the repairs, made the complaint and referred the matter to this Service – and who is claiming compensation. Further, in a telephone conversation with this Service on 26 October 2022 the occupier confirmed that when she purchased the property it was held in the name of a management company and she had purchased that company as this was the only way in which the property purchase could proceed, thus leaving the leasehold interest in the property in that entity’s ownership.
  3. The difficulties experienced by the occupier/complainant on account of the circumstances of the property purchase are appreciated. However, the paragraph of the Scheme outlined above (paragraph 25) is a mandatory ground for accepting complaints within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction and the complaint was raised at a point where the complainant did not satisfy this ground as it was the property management company, rather than the occupier/complainant that had the legal relationship with the landlord. The complaint, as defined above, is therefore not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction and will not be investigated here.