Landlords can now complete the Complaint Handling Code Annual Submissions form. More information is available online.

Westminster City Council (202120284)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202120284

Westminster City Council

17 August 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

  1. The complaint concerns how the landlord handled repairs to the ceilings in the property.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, which is a local authority. The property is a house.
  2. Following a surveyor’s inspection, work was raised by the landlord on 14 April 2021 to complete repairs to the living room, kitchen, bathroom and bedrooms of the property. On 22 June 2021 a further work order was raised following a report from the resident of cracks in the lounge ceiling. A note was added to the landlord’s repair logs on 16 July 2021 which stated that all the work had been completed and that the resident had been issued decorating vouchers. The landlord agreed to paint a section of the ceiling as a goodwill gesture.
  3. The resident made a further report about cracks in the living room ceiling on 2 August 2021. Further inspections were arranged for 4 and 10 August 2021 which found hairline cracks that were deemed to be the resident’s responsibility to resolve. The landlord also offered as a further goodwill gesture to repaint the entire living room ceiling.
  4. The resident wrote to the landlord on 21 September 2021 and requested to raise a complaint. She was dissatisfied with the length of time it was taking to repair the ceiling and she disputed that she was responsible for repairs as, in her view, the damage was caused by water damage following a jet wash of the roof arranged by the landlord’s contractor. As a resolution to the complaint, the resident requested that the landlord skim and replaster the living room ceiling.
  5. A stage one complaint response was sent to the resident on 14 October 2021. The landlord explained that it had found no evidence of water damage to the ceiling. Hairline cracks were discovered however, and it explained that this was normal for the type of material used to cover the ceiling. The landlord then explained that while it had agreed to repaint the ceiling as a goodwill gesture, that decoration was normally the responsibility of the tenant.
  6. Following an escalation request from the resident, a stage two complaint response was sent on 2 November 2021. The landlord informed the resident that it was satisfied with its position as set out at stage one. It also informed the resident that during an inspection on 4 August 2021 the resident highlighted a patch of staining on a bedroom room ceiling which was deemed to be wallpaper paste residue rather than water damage.
  7. In referring the case to this Service, the resident described the outstanding issues to the complaint as she disputed that the work to the ceiling is her responsibility as it was caused by water damage from jet washing work by the landlord’s contractor. As a resolution to the complaint the resident requested that the landlord stripped the ceilings, fixed the cracks and then decorated the ceilings.
  8. In further correspondence with this Service following the completion of the complaints process, the resident has raised further issues. She has stated that her neighbour has complained directly to her about what water damage to their property that they believe has come from the resident’s property. She also raised concerns about an ant infestation that she understands to relate to the same water damage issue. She has maintained that the landlord’s contractors completion of an external jet wash to the property initiated all the issues that she has experienced.

Assessment and findings

Relevant policies and procedures

  1. The landlord’s tenant handbook describes which repairs are the responsibility of the landlord and which are the responsibility of the resident. In regard to the resident’s repair responsibilities, the handbook states as follows:
    1. “[Tenants] are responsible for some minor repairs and maintenance to your home. This includes keeping your home in a good and clean condition. You are also responsible for decorating inside your home and keeping it in a good decorative state.”
  2. The handbook also states that the landlord may pay for decorating after completing repairs or if the decorations are damaged by a repair that the landlord was responsible for. In regard to the landlord’s repair responsibilities, the handbook states that this includes the upkeep of “the structure and outside of the buildings” and “major plastering work”.

How the landlord handled repairs to the ceilings in the property

  1. Following the work that was undertaken by the landlord between 14 April 2021 and 16 July 2021, the resident was awarded decoration vouchers. This was an appropriate action by the landlord in line with it repairs policy when decorations are damaged by its repair works.
  2. The landlord was informed by the resident after the completion of this work that there were cracks in the living room ceiling. The landlord arranged an inspection in line with its responsibility for the upkeep of the structure of the property. The landlord was informed by its contractor that it had found hairline cracks in the material covering the ceiling, which was normal for the material type. The landlord informed the resident of the result of the inspection, explained that as it was a decoration issue that it would be her responsibility to resolve. It also offered to repaint a section of the ceiling as a goodwill gesture.
  3. Based on the advice from its appropriately qualified contractor that there was no evidence of structural or water damage to the ceiling and that the cracks were cosmetic, it was appropriate for the landlord to conclude that it was not its responsibility to complete the repairs and inform the resident of her responsibilities for decoration.
  4. Although not obligated to carry out any work, the landlord repainted a section of the ceiling, and then offered to repaint the entire ceiling as a goodwill gesture. The offer to re-paint the ceiling was declined by the resident as she disputed that the cracks were cosmetic, that the contractors had stripped wallpaper from the ceiling, and that damage to a bedroom ceiling had been caused by historical work by the landlord to jet wash the roof. She also said that she was dissatisfied with the end results of the re-painting of the section of the ceiling that had taken place.
  5. Following this further information from the resident, it was appropriate for the landlord to arrange a further inspection to investigate these issues. The property surveyor who undertook the inspection informed the landlord that the staining on the bedroom ceiling was due to wallpaper paste and that there was no evidence of water damage. The landlord was also informed that the photographs taken of the ceilings in the property by the contractor during its appointment showed that the wallpaper was still in place and that it had been further stripped after its visit.
  6. Overall, the landlord has acted appropriately and in line with its repair policy in how it responded to the residents reports of cracks in the ceilings. There is no evidence that the cracks were a structural issue and multiple inspections found the cracks to be hairline cracks in the material covering the ceiling and therefore a cosmetic issue. The inspection also found no evidence of water damage to the bedroom ceiling. It was therefore reasonable for the landlord to remind the resident of her own responsibilities to decorate the property. Furthermore, the landlord offered to repaint the lounge ceiling as a goodwill gesture despite having no obligation to do so.
  7. In reaching this conclusion, the Ombudsman has decided that it was reasonable for the landlord to rely upon the expert opinion of its surveyor. It is clear that the resident disagrees with the surveyors findings, however, there is no evidence available to contradict the surveyor’s findings. That it’s not to say that there is no substance in the resident’s reports, only that it has not been possible to substantiate her reports in the evidence available.
  8. It is noted that the resident has reported ongoing issues in relation to water damage to this Service. This includes her reports that a neighbour has complained directly to her about how this is impacting upon their property. Events that have occurred following the completion of the complaints process under investigation cannot be assessed here due to the Ombudsman’s limited remit. However, in consideration of the resident’s dissatisfaction with the landlord’s response to her complaint, as well as her ongoing reports about the neighbouring property and an ant infestation, it is recommended that the landlord arrange a further inspection. This will provide reassurance to both parties, as well as the neighbour, that any new issues have been identified.
  9. During correspondence with this Service, the resident has stated that the condition of the ceilings in the property have had a direct impact on the existing health conditions of her son. When providing evidence to this Service, the landlord stated that it had no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident’s household on its system. Therefore, it is recommended that the landlord contact the resident and update its records regarding any medical conditions related to the resident’s household. It should also inform the resident whether this information has made any changes to its decisions regarding repair responsibilities for the ceilings in the property.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of how it handled repairs to the ceilings in the property.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord, if it has not done so already, contact the resident and update its records regarding any medical conditions related to the resident’s household. It should also inform the resident whether this information has made any changes to its decisions regarding repair responsibilities for the ceilings in the property.
  2. The landlord to arrange a further inspection of the property to investigate the resident’s reports about an ant infestation and possible water damage to a neighbouring property.