Westminster City Council (202125116)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202125116

Westminster City Council

29 February 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 landlords:
   1. Response to the resident’s concerns about its management of access to the car park.
   2. Response to the resident’s concerns about the impact of neighbouring building works.
   3. Response to the resident’s concerns about its management of refurbishment works including works it agreed to do and the time taken.
   4. Handling of the complaint.

Background

2. The resident is a leaseholder of a third floor 2-bedroom flat. A new care home development was built on adjoining land to the block of flats where the resident lives. The building works began in 2017. In 2018 the landlord assisted the residents to set up their own group called the “residents voice” to enable residents to voice any concerns in relation to the new development works. The residents held quarterly meetings with the landlord to discuss the new development. The building of the care home was completed in August 2020.
3. In September 2020 the resident raised a formal complaint. She said the building works had been extremely intrusive due to proximity and shared access to the building site. She was dissatisfied with the adverse design caused by the redevelopment, the damage caused to the block and communal areas, and she had security concerns. She said the landlord had promised substantial refurbishment within the block due to the stress and inconvenience caused by the development which had not been completed.  She felt that concerns that had been raised about the impact of the new development had been ignored.
4. In January 2021 the landlord responded. It said it “partially upheld the complaint”. In respect of the path design, it said that it would not extend this. Its fire safety adviser had confirmed the new entry was compliant with fire regulations. In respect of refurbishment, it listed off various works that it had completed and provided dates for those that were still outstanding. In respect of additional security fencing, it said it would explore funding options.
5. In March 2021 the resident raised a stage 2 complaint because the matters raised at stage 1 still remained outstanding. She also said the communication from the landlord had been poor. The landlord responded in May 2022. It upheld the complaint due to the extended time it had taken to complete the refurbishment works, the lack of feedback and its failure to respond to the resident’s stage 2 complaint. It attached to the complaint a list of works and the current status of those works.
6. In June 2022 the resident contacted this Service. She said that repairs were still outstanding and works related to the refurbishment had still not been completed.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

7. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). 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.
8. After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42(o) of the Scheme, the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about its management of access to the carpark is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
9. When the complaint was first raised to the landlord it was brought by a group of residents. The complaint in summary was about the impact of the building of the new development. This Service has been unable to accept the complaint as a group complaint due to the fact that the residents within the group have different tenures, some are tenants, and some are leaseholders. Where there are different tenures, we are unable to determine whether the issues in dispute and facts relating to the complaint are the same for all residents involved.
10. In respect of access to the carpark the landlord informed this Service that this affected 4 of its residents who it had contacted directly.  The resident has never had or been allocated a parking space. There was, therefore, no significant adverse effect caused to her as an individual by the landlord’s management of access to the carpark. Although this has not been considered as part of this investigation, all other elements of the complaint have been considered.

Response to the resident’s concerns about the impact of neighbouring building works.

11. The landlord had assisted to set up a resident’s voice in 2018 which was appropriate given the extensive development works that began in 2017. The meetings were held quarterly and gave all residents the opportunity to raise any issues that they had in respect of the new development.
12. Within the stage 1 complaint the resident said that access to the building had been impacted by building works. They said that it was still an issue at the point the stage 1 had been raised in September 2020. Residents had not been informed and no dates had been provided in respect of the various works in particular to the entrance points.Private deliveries had also been impacted as access to the block was not clear.
13. The landlord explained the new design and why the gates had been separated to facilitate separate access for 3 buildings. It explained height restrictions and advised the appropriate entrance that should now be used for delivery of heavy goods. It failed however to investigate and assess its own communication in respect of the new design and access and whether this had been communicated to residents during or after the development works. That it did not was a failing and did not show that it had listened to the resident and taken the issues raised seriously. The uncertainty of access would have caused difficulties for the resident accessing their property and obtaining their deliveries.
14. The landlord advised that signage would be put up to assist with deliveries in January.  It is unknown exactly when the signs were erected. It is acknowledged that the resident has advised this Service that she considers the signs are not clear. This Service cannot assess the adequacy of the signage. If this remains an issue, then the resident should raise this as a formal complaint to give the landlord opportunity to investigate and respond. The installation of signage in these circumstances would however have been appropriate to assist with any confusion about access and deliveries.
15. The resident was also concerned that the new path layout provided was not accessible for refuse collection and that it was not safe for evacuation in an emergency. The landlord within its stage 1 response explained that the paths had been checked by its fire safety adviser who confirmed that they were compliant with fire regulations. The path had also been checked by the refuse company who confirmed that it was acceptable. This response was reasonable in the circumstances and showed that the landlord had considered the resident’s concerns and ensured that the appropriate checks had taken place.
16. The resident also raised safety concerns about the green area. The landlord ensured that fly-tipping was removed previously and agreed to explore funding to see if the area could be fenced. This response was solution focused and reasonable in the circumstances.
17. In summary the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns shows that it was seeking to remedy the issues raised where it could. Where it was unable to, it explained why within its complaint response. However, the evidence fails to show whether the landlord had considered its own communication with the resident and how that would have contributed to the impact of the building works. That it did not was a failing. The lack of clear communication caused the resident uncertainty around what was happening in respect of the on-going works. This amounts to maladministration and would have caused the resident further time and distress having to pursue the matter formally.

Management of refurbishment works including works it agreed to do and the time taken.

18. It is not clear from the evidence provided what had been specifically agreed in respect of refurbishment works. The resident and the landlord agreed that an inspection took place in September 2020 andrefurbishment and works to make good certain items were identified and agreed during that inspection.  The landlord acknowledged within its stage 1 complaint response that it had agreed to do works.  It listed the items that it had completed and provided dates for those that were still to be completed.
19. In the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response dated 20 May 2022 the landlord agreed that the time taken for it to complete the works had been protracted as items still remained outstanding.  The delay and lack of feedback it agreed was unacceptable. It listed at least9jobs that still remained outstanding.  It said that it was unable to provide specific completion dates, but the outstanding works would be completed as part of the major works programme. This programwould commence on or around August 2023.
20. This is almost 2 years after the refurbishment works were first identified and agreed. It is acknowledged that the works are arguably deemed planned and are therefore not under a specific timescale. However, during this period, the landlord has failed to show how it communicated with the resident. It did not provide a timeline for the completion of the works which in turn failed to manage the resident’s expectations. The landlord only communicates some timescales when the resident raises a formal complaint as shown in its stage 2 response. The lack of clarity has been considered in the compensation and an order made below.  This failing meant that the resident has had to continue to chase and pursue her complaint for several years to try to ensure that the landlord completes the relevant works.  This would have caused time, distress, and inconvenience to the resident.

Handling of the complaint.

21. The landlord’s complaint policy states it will respond to stage 1 and 2 complaints within 10 working days. The resident raised their stage 1 complaint on 15 September 2020.  The response was provided on 19 January 2021 which was 87 working days after the complaint was first raised.
22. The stage 1 complaint response lacked learning. The comments that the relevant works were now scheduled did not show a meaningful assessment of how the failings had occurred. It was also silent on what it would do to prevent similar happening again. This was a further shortcoming in its handling of the issue. The resident experienced an inconvenience of raising concerns about the landlord’s handling of the refurbishment works, without receiving a detailed response.
23. The resident requested an escalation to stage 2 on 15 March 2021. On 31 March 2021 the landlord sent a holding response and agreed to provide its response by 16 April 2021. The landlord did not provide a response until 20 May 2022 which was over a year later. This was not in accordance with its own timescales set out in its policy and was a failing which made the complaint process unduly long. The landlord acknowledged this failing and explained that as it considered it was progressing the works it did not provide a formal response which was a failing.
24. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response went some way to acknowledging its failings, but the acknowledgment was vague. The landlord tried to set out when the proposed works would start, but still failed to show detailed learning about its handling of the refurbishment works up to that point. This was unsatisfactory and a further failing in its handling of the complaint.

Determination (decision)

25. In accordance with paragraph 42(o) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about its management of access to the carpark is not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to consider
26. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the impact of neighbouring building works.
27. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s management of refurbishment works including works it agreed to do and the time taken.
28. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Orders

29. The landlord is ordered to do the following within the next 28 days:
    1. Apologise to the resident for the failures identified by this investigation.
    2. Pay the resident £600 compensation broken down as follows:
       1. £150 compensation for the stress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the impact of neighbouring building works.
       2. £200 for the stress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s management of the refurbishment works including works it agreed to do and the time taken.
       3. £250 for the stress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the complaint.
30. The landlord is ordered to do the following within 8 weeks:
    3. Write to the resident to confirm what works remain outstanding. It should provide dates for commencement of any remaining works and estimated completion timescales.  A copy should be sent to this Service also within 8 weeks.
    4. Considering the failings identified in this report, complete a review into its handling of the refurbishment works to identify how it can prevent similar failings happening again. A copy should be sent to this Service also within 8 weeks.