Westminster City Council (202109272)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202109272

Westminster City Council

9 March 2023

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 leaseholder 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. This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of a repair to a skylight in the leaseholder’s property.

Background

2. The leaseholder holds a long lease of the property, a flat. This property is in a block of flats of which the landlord is the freeholder. The lease requires the landlord to provide services and the leaseholder to contribute towards their costs by way of a variable service charge.
3. The leaseholder does not live at the property. They currently let the property to another tenant who resides there.
4. The leaseholder reported a leaking timber skylight to the landlord. The responsibility for the skylight was previously determined by the First Tier Tribunal to be the responsibility of the landlord to fix. The skylight had previously undergone repairs. The landlord replaced this under their major works programme on 22 February 2021. The landlord installed a different uPVC frame, and this meant the pre-existing blinds could not be re-fitted. This was reported to the landlord on 23 February 2021 and the leaseholder was provided with two workable solutions. These were: either replacing the frame with a new timber frame or ordering new blinds to fit the new uPVC frame. On 26 February 2021, the leaseholder confirmed they would like new blinds to be fitted. These had to be ordered meaning the landlord was unable to fit these immediately. There was a delay of nine weeks before the blind was fitted. During this delay the landlord offered the resident £200 compensation for the replacement error and the delays, as well as covering the cost of new blinds.
5. Whilst waiting for the installation of their new blinds, the leaseholder raised a complaint with the landlord on 29 April 2021. In this the leaseholder mentioned they were unhappy when a like-for-like timber frame was not installed. They described this as a ‘catastrophic failure…in monitoring’. Their complaint raised the following issues:

1. The failures, including in inspection and supervision, to allow the incorrect frame material to be fitted.
2. The landlord’s involvement in negotiating a settlement with the contractor Axis.
3. The delays in installing a new blind in the property.
4. The failure of a member of the landlord’s staff to properly organise a new point of contact when going on maternity leave.
5. The failure in inspection and supervision, as well as the landlord’s failure to monitor staff performance.

6. New blinds were installed in the property on 5 May 2021. The landlord then issued their stage one complaint response letter on 12 May 2021. It did not uphold the leaseholder’s complaint. The landlord stated it tried to resolve the issue, and the offer of £200 compensation was fair. The leaseholder disagreed with this response and requested an escalation of this complaint on 13 May 2021. The landlord provided their stage two final complaint response letter on 15 June 2021. It did not uphold the leaseholder’s complaint. The landlord continued to maintain that, although there were delays, the compensation offered was reasonable.
7. The leaseholder contacted this service on 14 July 2021. They stated they were unhappy with the landlord leaving them with a plastic frame rather than a timber frame. They also stated they were unhappy with the landlord’s inspection service and being charged for this. They also stated they were unhappy that compensation was paid to them by the landlord and not the contractor, and that the landlord failed to inform them when inspection and negotiation duties changed hands.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

8. Throughout the complaints process the leaseholder raised issues about the inspection cost of the Section 20 works and the estimated major works service charge. Paragraph 42(e) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that this Service may not consider complaints that ‘concern the level of rent or service charge’. Given this, complaint points regarding the reasonableness of specific charges will not be addressed in this investigation.
9. The leaseholder requested an increase in compensation to include distress and inconvenience to their tenant. As this relates to the effect of the landlord’s actions on a third-party this will not be considered as a part of this investigation. Although this may have caused some inconvenience for the leaseholder, from the evidence available, this has not caused any significant detriment.

The landlord’s handling of the repair to the skylight in the leaseholder’s property

10. The landlord agreed to replace the skylight as part of their major works programme. The skylight was replaced on 22 February 2022.
11. The leaseholder was unhappy that a uPVC skylight frame was installed rather than a replacement timber frame. The landlord has admitted that they made an error with this repair and left the leaseholder without a like-for-like skylight replacement.
12. The landlord responded to the leaseholder’s issue within two working days and offered two solutions. Whilst the landlord doesn’t have a specific policy in relation to this scenario, it is considered that both offers are fair and reasonable and in line with this Service’s dispute resolution principles.
13. As a result of its error the landlord has offered to cover the cost of replacement blinds and offered £200 compensation. The landlord would not ordinarily be expected to replace soft furnishings as per the leaseholder booklet. However, given that its error left the skylight without blinds, this Service believes it was fair for the landlord to exceed its obligations set out in its policies to offer a resolution.
14. The landlord does not have a specific compensation policy that describes the level of compensation it offers when dealing with complaints. However, on the landlord’s website it does refer to both Housing Ombudsman Service dispute resolution guidance and Local Government & Social Care Ombudsman guidance on remedies.
15. Having taken these into account it is the opinion of this Service that the £200 compensation offered by the landlord was fair and reasonable. Whilst the landlord made an error, it acted quickly to offer the leaseholder potential solutions to the problems
16. To reduce disruption to their tenant the leaseholder selected to have a new blind ordered. The leaseholder has told us they were unhappy with the delays in the landlord installing the new blind. This was a delay of around nine weeks from the blind being ordered. The landlord has said that this was the result of delays with the supplier. The landlord informed the leaseholder of these delays on 7 April 2021 and provided a new estimated timeframe. In the circumstances this Service deems these additional delays were outside the landlord’s control.
17. The leaseholder stated that they believe the landlord’s inspection service has not performed its duties correctly. The landlord doesn’t have a specific policy relating to inspections of this nature. This work was due to be inspected four days after the new skylight was installed on 26 February 2021. The installation error was highlighted to the landlord prior to this. This was a reasonable timeframe given the nature of the works.
18. The leaseholder also told this Service they were not happy with this compensation being paid by the landlord when discussions regarding this had been with Axis. Despite the conversation being with Axis, the contractual relationship for the repair was between the landlord and the leaseholder so it’s reasonable the landlord would pay any compensation.
19. The landlord’s handling of the leaseholder’s complaint has been in-line with the timescales set out in its complaints policy.
20. During the complaints process the member of staff the leaseholder had been in communication with went on maternity leave. The leaseholder was unhappy that there was no alternative arrangements in place meaning the leaseholder was unsure who to communicate with. Although this hasn’t caused detriment in this instance it is recommended the landlord review its communication policies to ensure leaseholders always have at least one point of contact when experiencing issues.
21. Overall, the landlord made a mistake in not replacing the window with a like-for-like replacement. Nevertheless the landlord acted quickly to rectify this, not withstanding the delay from the blind supplier. They also compensated the leaseholder accordingly for the inconvenience.

Determination

22. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in relation to the landlords handling of a repair to a skylight in the leaseholder’s property.

Recommendations

23. If the landlord has not already paid the leaseholder, the landlord should reoffer the £200 compensation.
24. The landlord should consider adopting a communication policy which lets leaseholders know exactly who to contact in instances where certain members of staff may no longer be able to communicate with them directly.