Westminster City Council (202100951)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202100951

Westminster City Council

15 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 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

This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. the resident’s reports of a leak from above into her bathroom;
2. the resident’s request for a property transfer.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a secure tenant and the landlord has described the property as a one-bedroom second floor flat. The flat is within a seven-storey block.
The landlord’s records show that the resident has health conditions such as chronic anorexia nervosa, anxiety, panic attacks, OCD, asthma and depression.
The tenancy agreement shows that the landlord is responsible for keeping the structure of buildings and fittings, pipes and connections in good working order. It adds that the resident is obliged to report repairs and allow the landlord’s staff into the property to inspect and carry out repairs.
The tenant handbook shows that the landlord classes plumbing blockages and works as ‘urgent’ repairs, meaning works should be started within 24 hours. It confirms that residents are required to allow access at ‘reasonable times’.
The landlord operates a choice-based lettings scheme in its capacity as a local authority. There is a housing allocations scheme that sets out how its housing solutions department assesses whether applicants can be placed in a priority group list and therefore bid for available properties. This includes priority on medical and welfare grounds where the applicant’s present ‘housing situation seriously adversely affects health’.
The allocations scheme shows that there is an option for the landlord to allow a tenant transfer outside the normal allocation process if there is a ‘pressing housing need’ and ‘all other routes to appropriate accommodation have been explored and exhausted’. It gives examples of this as where the tenant is experiencing ‘threatened or actual violence’ or ‘racial harassment’.
The landlord’s tenant handbook shows that residents can apply for a management transfer move if there is ‘a very serious and urgent problem which means you cannot stay in your home’ or a medical case move ‘if you need to move urgently on medical grounds if your home is not helping your condition’.
The landlord has a two-stage complaints process that requires it to respond within 10 working days at both stages.
The landlord has a ‘compensation and payments scheme’ that sets out that it can pay up to £50 for delays in accordance with the ‘right to repair’ scheme and mentions amounts such as £1000 per annum for failure to complete a repair that has a ‘significant impact’ for a year and £500-£2000 for distress and inconvenience over a year.
Complaints about decisions made through the landlord’s choice-based lettings scheme – such as priority banding decisions – are not within the jurisdiction of this Service to consider but are referred to below for context.

Summary of Events

The landlord’s repairs records show that it raised a works order on 8 June 2020 to inspect the resident’s property because she reported a possible leak and lack of a working bathroom. An inspection occurred on 10 June 2020, the landlord noting that the bathroom had not been used for months, there were possible leaks under the bath and wash hand basin where pipework had come away and tiling, sealing and a bath panel were needed.
The landlord raised works orders on 11 June 2020 to conduct a mould wash, conduct plumbing works and fit tiles and sealant.
The landlord noted on 25 June 2020 that the resident had contacted it to follow up on the bathroom issue and request temporary accommodation. It recorded that the contractor had not identified a need for the resident to be moved and it signposted her to its housing solutions department. It added that it attempted to book the works in with the resident but she refused as she believed the bath, toilet and wash hand basin needed renewal.
The landlord’s internal emails show that it spoke to the resident on 20 July 2020 and that she asked the landlord to provide her with a referral letter advising of disrepair in her property so she could liaise with housing solutions to arrange a move.
The landlord’s repairs records show that it attempted to carry out repairs to the resident’s bathroom on 21 July 2020 but the resident had insisted that it renew the bathroom. It noted that it planned to return on 24 July 2020 to conduct repairs.
The landlord’s contractor wrote to the landlord on 27 July 2020 – it advised that the resident had refused them access for the fourth time on 23 July 2020 on the grounds that their schedule did not include a bathroom renewal. It added that it had made an appointment to reconnect the resident’s bath taps and stop a leak on the wash hand basin and toilet to prevent water ingress into flats below but that access had again been refused that day.
The landlord hand delivered letters to the resident on 5, 6 and 7 August 2020, requesting access due to its belief that there was a leak from her property affecting other flats. It raised a repairs order on 6 August 2020 to address what had been described as a ‘slow drip’ and noted on 7 August 2020 that there was ‘massive leaking’ in the flat above that needed to be remedied.
The landlord recorded receipt of a complaint from the resident on 7 August 2020. It showed that she had complained on the grounds that it had taken too long for the landlord to commence repairs and that it had failed to assist in her move request.
The landlord’s repairs records show that it attended the property on 11 August 2020 to conduct a mould wash but the resident advised she had not been made aware of the appointment and was expecting her bathroom to be replaced.
The landlord’s repairs records show that it attended the flat above on 12 August 2020 and remedied the leak by overhauling bath and kitchen sink mixers and replacing a basin mixer and pipework under the bath.
The landlord noted on 19 August 2020 that it had been unable to speak to the resident yet.
The landlord issued a stage one complaint response to the resident on 20 August 2020. It concluded that:
1. it received a leak report on 8 June 2020 and a surveyor attended on 10 June 2020, finding that there were ‘signs of a leak under the bath, behind the wash hand basin and toilet was found with mould on the walls’
2. it raised repairs orders to repair the pipework leak, carry out a mould wash, replace the bath panel and tiles surrounding the bath and to seal and make the bathroom waterproof but the resident had said she needed to be moved when it contacted her on 25 June 2020 to arrange appointments
3. it sent a repairs operative on 6 July 2020 to carry out bathroom works but the resident had insisted that the bathroom needed to be renewed
4. a joint inspection (with a surveyor) occurred on 27 July 2020 when it was explained to the resident that repairs to stop the leaking from the bath, wash hand basin and toilet were needed
5. it highlighted that the resident should allow access, in accordance with the terms of her tenancy, to prevent damage to the property and others
6. there was a leak from above report from the resident for which it had written letters during 5-7 August 2020, attended the flat above on 7 August 2020 and completed works there on 12 August 2020
7. the resident’s bathroom had not been assessed as being unusable and the required works did not represent a health and safety risk so neither temporary accommodation nor a property transfer were necessary.
The landlord’s internal emails show that it noted on 25 August 2020 that its housing team had been unable to contact the resident to confirm a repairs appointment.
The landlord noted and acknowledged receipt of a housing register application from the resident on 19 September 2020 (the resident had completed a ‘tenant transfer application’ dated 15 July 2020 with an accompanying medical form dated 2 August 2020). The resident said that she wished to move as the property condition (including damp) was affecting her health conditions (OCD, asthma, anorexia, anxiety); this was processed by the local authority housing solutions department.
The landlord’s records show that it wrote to the resident on 22 September 2020, advising why medical priority could not be awarded and that the repairs issues needed to be reported to its housing department. It noted that the housing application case was closed.
The landlord’s records show that it noted the resident’s intention to request a review of the housing application decision on 28 September 2020.
The landlord’s repairs records show that it carried out the mould wash to the resident’s bathroom on 2 October 2020 – it noted that water stains were still present following a leak from above.
The housing solutions department wrote to the resident on 13 October 2020 – it advised that ‘the issues you highlight in your application form are more related to the condition and location of your flat’ and decided that the resident would not be added to its transfer list or housing register. It signposted her to its local mutual exchange scheme and nationwide house exchange websites, provided more information about its choice-based lettings scheme and recommended that she liaise with the housing department about her property condition allegations.
The resident submitted a complaint escalation to the landlord on 14 December 2020 on the grounds that:
1. contractors had attended to decorate her property due to damp damage (and the impact of soot from a nearby train station) but works had been completed to a poor standard
2. the leak had been ‘on and off’ since then so further damage was caused
3. aside from damp, the bathroom facilities were unusable
4. she needed her housing application to be progressed.
The landlord’s repairs records show that a works order was raised on 30 December 2020 as the resident reported the leak from above was considerably worse and affecting her bathroom and hallway. The landlord noted that it attended the property and the upstairs flat that day, fitting a new waste trap and tightening pipework under the bath of the upstairs flat.
The landlord’s repairs records show a further works order was raised on 31 December 2020 as the resident reported there was still flooding to her property. The landlord’s contractor recorded that it attended the upstairs flat that day and conducted a temporary repair to the wash hand basin pipework. It asked the landlord to liaise with both households and arrange a surveyor visit.
The resident chased a complaint response on 31 December 2020 – she mentioned that her bathroom and hallway had been flooded the day before which an operative had attended for but made worse and that an operative had attended that day but not repaired the problem and not assisted her in clearing up the leak. She asked that it liaise with its housing solutions team to progress her move and place her in temporary accommodation in the meantime.
The landlord (in its capacity as a local authority) wrote to the resident on 25 January 2021 regarding a complaint she had made about her housing application. It noted that she had advised that her health conditions meant she had refused works to her property but it decided that the property had not impacted her health and so she did not meet the banding criteria for medical priority. It confirmed that it was still reviewing this decision following her appeal of 28 September 2020.
The resident chased a complaint response on 5 February 2021 – she said that the leak from above was ongoing, causing flooding to her bathroom, and that she had to call the landlord every two weeks to report this. She added that mould grew back after she cleaned it and she had reported this issue since April 2020.
The landlord also noted that it spoke to the resident on 5 February 2021 and that she requested temporary accommodation due to multiple major leaks from above. It recorded that there was a repair order open for a plumber to attend that day.
The landlord’s repairs records show that it raised a works order on 7 February 2021 due to the resident’s continued reports of a leak from above for which an engineer had attended on 5 February 2021. It noted that bath mixer taps and a valve on the toilet required replacement. It added on 8 February 2021 that the bath and tiles needed to be renewed.
The landlord’s internal emails show that it reviewed the case on 9 February 2021, noting that the resident had ‘arranged for some bathroom works themselves but the work was not completed’ and that it had tried to attend to put this right but the resident had refused access as she wanted the bathroom renewed. It also recorded that it spoke to the resident that day and that she told it that a surveyor had visited her but access to the flat above had been difficult; the landlord subsequently confirmed with the upstairs neighbour that the leak from under his bath had been stopped on 5 February 2021.
The landlord issued its final complaint response to the resident on 9 February 2021. It concluded that:
1. it had remedied a leak into the resident’s bathroom on 12 August 2020 and detailed the remedial works needed on 20 August 2020
2. it had proposed to complete remedial works in August 2020 but the resident had asked to be decanted from the property
3. it had rejected the resident’s request to be moved to alternative accommodation on the grounds that the property was not found to be unsafe and remedial works would not cause a health and safety risk
4. it completed a mould wash on 2 October 2020 (after initially being refused access) when it found the bathroom was dry with no ongoing damp or leak
5. it had not received a further report of a leak from above until 4 December 2020 but had failed to complete the necessary works (replacement of a bath waste trap) until 30 December 2020 for which it apologised and awarded £120 compensation
6. it had inspected the resident’s bathroom in June 2020, July 2020 and October 2020, concluding the bathroom and its facilities were all usable and not in need of renewal
7. it explained it had merged the resident’s new complaint of December 2020 with the original complaint and treated it as an escalation request given it concerned the same subject matter
8. its housing solutions department had rejected the resident’s application in October 2020 but that decision was currently being reviewed.
The landlord (as a local authority) issued its housing allocations review decision to the resident on 9 February 2021 – it upheld its original decision that she was not entitled to medical priority. It noted that the resident would need to allow access to surveyors to assess the extent of leak damage and damp to the property and offered reassurance that there was a ‘strict protocol in place to ensure that Covid19 rules are followed when any work is being carried out’.
The landlord’s repairs records show that it completed ‘numerous repairs’ to the upstairs flat bathroom on 30 March 2021 (as well as in June-July 2021).
The resident approached the landlord during March-April 2021, seeking written confirmation from them that she had been away from the property due to leak and bathroom damage. The landlord wrote to the resident on 14 April 2021, advising that the ‘Housing Officer advised she spoke with you some months ago, you informed her that you were staying with your mother, part time, because of renovations you were completing in your bathroom’.
The resident approached this Service in April 2021, explaining that she disagreed with the landlord’s stance that her bathroom was acceptable and advising that she was seeking for the landlord to move to her to alternative accommodation; she added in June 2021 that the leak was ongoing.
The Local Government & Social Care Ombudsman decided on 10 June 2021 that it would not investigate the decision that the resident could not join the housing register – it said that this was due to insufficient evidence of fault.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 28 June 2021, offering for a surveyor to visit the property on 6 July 2021 to check for any leak damage.
The resident has provided this Service with photographs taken in September 2021 that show stains to the bathroom ceiling and walls, black and red mould spotting to walls and a window area, a missing bath panel, missing tiles above the wash hand basin and a small section of bubbling plasterwork.

Assessment and findings

The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles are:

Be fair
Put things right
Learn from outcomes

This Service will apply these principles when considering whether any redress is appropriate and proportionate for any maladministration or service failure identified.

Leak from above

The resident has advised that she has experienced leaks into her bathroom since April 2020 but the earliest record of a report being made to the landlord was on 8 June 2020. The landlord’s records show that the resident reported her bathroom required renewal and there was a possible leak. The landlord inspected within two working days, identifying works to resolve a leak from the resident’s property and remedial works to the bathroom. It raised works accordingly the following working day – the landlord’s approach to inspect the resident’s property and raise works based on its findings was reasonable.
There is no evidence of any further action taken by the landlord over the following two weeks. In mitigation, when the landlord reviewed the matter on 25 June 2020, it attempted to arrange the outstanding works with the resident but she refused the repairs as it was her view that the bathroom needed to be renewed. Nevertheless, the landlord attempted to complete works on a few occasions in July 2020 but the resident reiterated that she did not wish for the identified repairs to be carried out – the lack of works during June-July 2020 that the landlord had identified were necessary was therefore not due to any failure on its part.
The landlord continued to take pro-active steps in early August 2020 to carry out works, particularly the potential leak it had identified from the resident’s bathroom. It visited the resident’s property on four occasions during this period – this demonstrated that it was resolution-focused and willing to persist in completing works despite initial difficulties in being allowed access by the resident.
The landlord initially became aware of a possible significant leak into the resident’s property on 7 August 2020. It recorded that related works to the flat above were completed within three working days. It is unclear from the evidence provided when works to remedy the leak began, and if this was within the 24-hour period set out in the tenant handbook for commencing plumbing repairs, but works to resolve the leak were completed within a reasonable timescale.
The landlord continued to take reasonable actions over the following month to address the repairs it had identified to the resident’s property in June 2020. It advised the resident in its stage one complaint response in August 2020 that she should allow works to proceed but noted later that month that its housing team had been unable to arrange access. Nevertheless, it did manage to complete a mould wash to the bathroom in early October 2020 which again demonstrated that it remained willing to pro-actively attempt repairs despite finding access difficult.
The resident mentioned in her complaint escalation in mid-December 2020 that the leak from above had been ‘on and off’. There is no evidence of another report until 30 December 2020 but the landlord later acknowledged that it had delayed from 4 December 2020 in responding to the resident’s further leak from above report. The tenant handbooks shows that the landlord is obliged to start plumbing repairs within 24 hours of a report so the inaction between 4-30 December 2020 represented an unnecessary delay of several weeks and was inappropriate, particularly given it was aware of the resident’s vulnerabilities.
When the landlord did attend the upstairs flat during 30-31 December 2020, it completed works to the pipework under the bath and conducted a temporary fix to wash hand basin pipework. However, there is no record that it took steps during January 2021 to check that these works had stopped the leak – this was unreasonable given the landlord was aware that the resident had described the significant damage to her bathroom and that it had already identified staining to her ceiling and walls in October 2020.
Further, the landlord described the fix to the upstairs flat wash hand basin in December 2020 as a short-term resolution and there is no evidence that it retuned to that flat to complete a permanent repair until February 2021, when the resident reported that the flooding to her bathroom had recurred. The landlord’s need to complete further repairs to the upstairs flat bathroom on 5 February 2021 indicates that it had failed to diagnose and implement a long-term solution to prevent leaks when it attended in December 2020 – this was unreasonable.
When the landlord reviewed its handling of the leaks in its final complaint response of February 2021, it apologised for the delay between 4-30 December 2020 and awarded £120 compensation. Although this represented reasonable redress for the landlord’s unnecessary delay in December 2020, the landlord failed to consider why it had been required to attend to a continuing leak from the flat above in February 2021 or identify that it had not pro-actively conducted follow-on works after the temporary repair in December 2020.
It is also of concern that the landlord’s repairs records indicate that it had to return to the upstairs flat on three occasions between March-July 2021 to complete further works and that the resident continued to report a leak from above in June 2021. This indicates that even the additional works completed at the time of the final complaint response in February 2021 did not offer a long-term solution to the water ingress into the resident’s bathroom and there is no evidence that the landlord sought to revisit the resident’s bathroom to review the need for remedial works until July 2021 – this was unreasonable.
In summary, the landlord took reasonable steps during June-October 2020 to identify and carry out repairs to the resident’s bathroom and stop a leak from above. It delayed in responding to the resident’s additional leak reports in December 2020 but the apology and compensation award in February 2021 offered sufficient redress for this failure. However, it failed to follow-up after December 2020 to complete a permanent repair to the upstairs flat which led to it needing to attend again in February 2021 and further leaks were reported as recently as June 2021.

Transfer Request

The resident made an initial request for the landlord to consider placing her in temporary accommodation on 25 June 2020. It responded by reviewing the results of its earlier property inspection of 10 June 2020 which found that repairs to the bathroom were needed but not that the property was uninhabitable nor that the resident needed to be moved out to allow works to proceed. The landlord’s decision that temporary accommodation was unnecessary and to signpost the resident to bid through the local authority choice-based lettings scheme was therefore reasonable.
The landlord made further representations about her need to move as part of her complaint in August 2020. The landlord’s stage one complaint response reiterated that the inspections to that point had not recommended that temporary accommodation was needed as they had not concluded the bathroom was unusable. It added that being transferred to alternative accommodation was similarly unnecessary because no health and safety concerns had been identified. Given it had not identified a ‘pressing housing need’ and it was not apparent that all other routes for re-housing had been exhausted, this decision was in line with the landlord’s allocations scheme criteria for considering a tenant transfer and therefore appropriate.
The resident submitted an application form to the landlord in September 2020 – this confirmed her wish to move and explained the impact of the property condition on her health conditions. This was assessed as both a request to join the housing register and a transfer application with responses issued on 22 September 2020 and 13 October 2020. The latter correspondence confirmed that the resident’s request for a property transfer had been declined on the grounds that it had not met the criteria of a severe medical or welfare problem or that the property would be beyond use. Given the allocations scheme sets out that a transfer is only possible where there is a ‘pressing housing need’ and the landlord had found through its repairs inspections that the resident’s bathroom could be repaired through remedial works, this decision was appropriate.
The landlord’s letter of 13 October 2020 also signposted the resident to various mutual exchanges schemes and reiterated that she could liaise with its housing department on the property condition issues. This demonstrated that the landlord remained willing to work with the resident to resolve the repairs issues and identified potential alternative means through which the resident could secure a move. This advice was reasonable given the landlord had determined that the resident had not met the criteria for a property transfer.
Since October 2020, the landlord has continued to assess the resident’s housing need in its capacity as a local authority and the Local Government & Social Care Ombudsman has decided that there was insufficient evidence of fault to investigate the matter. It is therefore not within the jurisdiction of this Service to consider these matters.
In summary, the landlord appropriately assessed the resident’s requests for temporary accommodation and a property transfer between June-October 2020, taking into account that it had established her bathroom could be repaired through remedial works. When it decided that the resident did not meet its criteria for a property transfer, it signposted her appropriately to other recourses through which she could potentially secure a move.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of a leak from above into her bathroom.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s request for a property transfer.

Reasons

The landlord noted that the repairs it completed to the upstairs flat in December 2020 were temporary but it failed to follow up on this which led to further leak damage in February 2021 with the landlord also having to return to the upstairs flat on multiple occasions during March-July 2021.
The landlord’s decision that the resident did not meet its criteria for a property transfer was appropriate and it offered reasonable advice on other potential means by which she could secure a move.

Orders

The landlord to write to the resident to apologise for the service failure identified in this report.
The landlord to organise an inspection of the resident’s property to check there is no ongoing leak and assess what remedial works are now needed; it should write to the resident within two weeks of the inspection to confirm the outcome and provide her with an action plan for the remedial works.
The landlord to pay the resident compensation of £250 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused to her by the maladministration in its handling of her reports of a leak from above into her bathroom.

The landlord should confirm compliance with these orders to this Service within four weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

The landlord to ensure it has procedures in place to follow up on leak from above repairs when it is aware that only a temporary fix has been completed.

The landlord should confirm its intentions in regard to this recommendation to this Service within four weeks of the date of this report.