Westminster City Council (202101263)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202101263

Westminster City Council

10 December 2021

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 resident complains about the level of compensation offered by the landlord for delays in repairs to damaged flooring, and to the heating system.

Background

2. The landlord’s repairs policy states that it will attend to urgent repairs within 24 hours, and non-urgent repairs ‘by appointment.’ It states that repairs to laminate flooring and carpets are a resident’s responsibility.
3. The landlord’s compensation policy sets out levels of compensation that may be paid in different circumstances, which include:
   1. Time & trouble in pursuing complaint: £50 – £250
   2. Distress / inconvenience £500 – £2000 per year dependent on the severity.
   3. Delay in carrying out repairs:
   • £500 for minor repairs outstanding or incomplete for more than a year.
   • £1000 per year for repairs causing a significant impact on daily life.

Summary of events

4. The resident is an older person and lives in sheltered accommodation. On 31 October 2019 the resident reported a leak at her property, which damaged flooring in the hallway. An operative attended the following day and found that the linoleum in the hallway had been damaged and could pose a trip hazard, and recommended that it be replaced. An appointment was made for the following week to make the floor safe, but the work could not be completed ‘due to the difficulty of the flooring.’ A note dated 11 November 2019 states ‘A complete job is required and date to be set…asap as it is a health and safety issue due to the state of the floor in the property.’ A new appointment was made for 16 November 2019.
5. The resident reported a loss of heating at her property on 26 November 2019. The landlord’s contractor attended on 27 November 2019 and advised that to complete the repair, parts would need to be ordered. The resident was offered two temporary fan heaters on this date, which she declined as she had her own.
6. Parts were received by the contractor on 29 November 2019, and it attended the property again on 3 December 2019. However, at this visit it was determined that a further part was required. Another appointment was made for 10 December 2019 to fit the part, but it had not arrived by this date, and so a further appointment was made for 18 December 2019, at which time the repair was completed. However, as the engineer had incorrectly set up the programmable room thermostat, the contractor had to reattend the following day to address this.
7. On 18 December 2019 the resident made a formal complaint to the landlord about the repairs. She said that it took two weeks to ‘make safe’ after she reported the initial leak incident on 31 October 20219, and the operative that attended left a cable above the flooring near her bedroom which was a trip hazard. She also raised concerns about the information/description that was recorded when the job was first raised as she felt this may have resulted in the wrong trades being sent.
8. In relation to the heating issue, the resident complained about the length of time she had been without heating, and the costs of running the electric heater. The landlord acknowledged this and said that it would respond by 6 January 2020.
9. On 6 January 2020 the landlord sent its stage one response. It offered sincere apologies for the delays that the resident had encountered with the repairs and the distress and inconvenience this had caused. In relation to the leak, it said that a surveyor attended the property for an inspection on 28 November 2019. It was noted that the leak was likely caused by ‘a water overflow from excess water in your kitchen’, and that this had resulted in damage to the hallway flooring. The hallway flooring had been replaced by the landlord on 16 November 2019 as ‘a gesture of goodwill’. Regarding the cable, it said ‘Unfortunately, we are unable to obtain any confirmation that the cable was left on the floor…and as such cannot substantiate your claim with regards this being a trip hazard.’
10.                  The letter went on to provide the background of the heating repair, and acknowledged and apologised for the failings with this, stating that it would be raised with the contractor. The landlord offered £110 for the delay and inconvenience caused, and would also be refunding the resident’s heating charge from 26 November 2019 until 19 December 2019 (£24.48) directly into her rent account.
11.                  On 26 August 2020 the resident made a stage two complaint. She reiterated that the leak occurred at the end of October 2019, leaving the hallway floor dangerous to walk on. She said that it took weeks for the flooring to be replaced. Not long after, the problems with the heating system began. She stated, ‘The fact that I live in “Sheltered Accommodation” had no influence whatsoever and all I had was a small heater to provide me with warmth during the coldest time of the year.’ She complained that she was expected to stay in and wait for contractors to attend and consequently had no social life.
12.                  She said, ‘You will note that the compensation offered for 7 weeks of misery was a derisory £110.00 which I rejected…It is not acceptable to leave a vulnerable person living in Sheltered Accommodation to endure such misery for the best part of two months.’ The resident asked for compensation of seven weeks rent to reflect the time taken to complete the repairs.
13.                  The landlord provided a response dated 18 November 2020, apologising for the delay in doing so. It said that it had reviewed the compensation offered at stage one and found that this had not been in line with its compensation policy, and did not consider the distress and inconvenience encountered, and time and trouble in pursuing the complaint. It detailed a new offer of compensation as follows:
    1. £60.00 for delays in carrying out repairs to the heating based on three weeks’ delay at £1,000.00 per year for significant repairs (pro rota), and £60.00 for distress and inconvenience related to this based on £1,000.00 per year (pro rota).
    2. £80.00 for delays in carrying out repairs to the flooring based on £1,000.00 per year for significant repairs (pro rota), and £80.00 for distress and inconvenience based on £1,000.00 per year (pro rota).
    3. £210.00 for the time and trouble in pursuing the complaint, based on £250.00 per year.
    4.          £20.00 for the failure to provide the stage two response within 10 working days.
14.                  This brought the total compensation offered to £510.00, along with the refund of heating charges of £24.48.

Assessment and findings

15.                  In her complaint to this Service the resident has set out her dissatisfaction at the amount of compensation offered, and believes this should be increased to the equivalent of seven weeks’ rent.
16.                  In its stage two response the landlord has accepted that there was a delay in restoring the heating, and a delay in replacing the hallway flooring. Therefore this is not in dispute.
17.                  The landlord then clearly set out how it calculated the compensation offered for these failings, which is good practice. In terms of the amounts, these were in line with its compensation policy and therefore can be said to have been calculated correctly. The landlord made calculations for both the delayed repairs themselves, as well as the distress and inconvenience this caused to the resident, which shows it was taking into account the cumulative effect the failings had on her.
18.                  It is not entirely clear why the landlord replaced the flooring in the hallway, given that the tenancy agreement sets out that this was the resident’s responsibility. The landlord has made reference to this being a ‘gesture of goodwill’ and initially said that the replacement was done on 16 November 2019 (two weeks after the initial report). Neither the stage one or the stage two response go into any detail on what occurred following the initial report, or addressed the resident’s concerns about the wrong trades being sent out.
19.                  Nevertheless, the landlord did accept a delay in replacing the flooring for four weeks (it is not clear why, as the repair records indicate the work was carried out on 16 November 2019, around two weeks after the issue was reported). As such it calculated compensation for this period to a total of £160. While this was in line with its own compensation policy, the Ombudsman does not consider that this took into account the resident’s particular circumstances and vulnerabilities: This was sheltered accommodation and the resident was an older person, making it especially important that all flooring was hazard free and safe to walk on. The repair record noted that the resident was vulnerable and used a walking stick, and so it is clear that the landlord was aware of these circumstances at the time. The repair record also states that the flooring posed a potential trip hazard. With this in mind, the Ombudsman would consider a slightly higher amount of compensation to be reasonable in the circumstances.
20.                  The same can be said for the loss of heating: Given the resident’s age and the time of year, it would have been especially important to ensure that she had adequate heating. The delay in repairing the heating is somewhat mitigated however by the fact that the resident was offered two electric heaters (which she declined), and also had her own to use. As such, it was not the case that she was left with no heating for an extended period, although the Ombudsman acknowledges that electric heaters are less convenient and effective than central heating, and that she was put to the inconvenience of several attendances to repair the heating. As above, the Ombudsman would consider a slightly higher amount of compensation to be reasonable. 
21.                  Having said this, the landlord also offered £210 for the time and trouble the resident took in pursuing the complaint. The Ombudsman recognises that any resident pursuing a complaint with their landlord will incur a certain amount of time and trouble. However, a landlord would not usually be expected to compensate in these circumstances: A remedy of financial compensation may be appropriate if the time and trouble incurred by the resident in seeking to resolve their complaint was significantly more than would be reasonably expected due to a landlord’s poor complaint handling. For example, a landlord had unreasonably failed to progress or escalate a complaint on repeated occasions, failed to respond to reasonable contacts from the complainant or demonstrated overall poor complaint handling.
22.                  In this case, other than the delay in responding to the stage two complaint (which was compensated separately), there is no indication that the time and trouble incurred by the resident in seeking to resolve the complaint was significantly more than would be reasonably expected: She submitted a stage one complaint, which was responded to, and then submitted a stage two complaint, which was also responded to. Therefore, the Ombudsman would not consider compensation required for time and trouble here.
23.                  To conclude, slightly higher amounts of compensation may have been appropriate for the delays with the flooring and heating repairs in light of the resident’s particular vulnerabilities. However, this is countered by the £210 that was offered for time and trouble taken in pursuing the complaint, which was not warranted. On balance, the total of £510.00 was a reasonable remedy.

Determination (decision)

24.                  In line with section 54 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration with the level of compensation offered by the landlord for delays in repairs to damaged flooring, and to the heating system.

Reasons

25.                  The Ombudsman understands that this was a distressing and inconvenient experience for the resident. However, overall the amount of compensation awarded by the landlord was reasonable and in line with its compensation policy.

Recommendations

26.                  If it has not done so already, the landlord should pay the resident the £510 offered, and reimburse the £24.48 heating charges.
27.                  The landlord has stated that it has no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident. Given the references in this case to mobility issues the landlord should consider amending this.