Westminster City Council (202125781)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202125781

Westminster City Council

23 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

The complaint is about:

a. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damage caused by her neighbour’s building works and the lack of repairs.

b. The notice given to the resident regarding her neighbour’s building works.

c. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise disturbance from the works.

d. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s subsequent complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident has a secure tenancy agreement and lives in a three bedroom ground floor maisonette. The landlord has no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident, however, correspondence shows that the landlord was aware that the resident has a hearing impediment.
The resident’s upstairs neighbour, who is a leaseholder, applied to the council to carry out alterations to their property in January 2021. The council who is also the landlord for both the neighbour and resident provided its consent in May 2021 (authority for the work to commence was granted by the landlord in its capacity as a landlord and not it acting in any other role/function). The approved works were extensive and included the neighbour converting their flat from a one bedroom to a two bedroom property. There were also works in relation to the kitchen and bathroom spaces.
Consent was given for the works on the understanding that several conditions were met. These included:
1. There was to be no working outside of the permitted hours for any audible works. The hours were – Monday to Friday 8am to 6pm. Saturdays – 8am to 1pm and there was no working allowed on Sundays and bank holidays.
2. Notice must be provided to neighbours either side of the flat, directly below and directly above the flat where the works were taking place. The notice should be given prior to works taking place and this should include a start date and expected finish date. Contact details should also be provided in case of any problems or they need to contact the person completing the works.
3. Should any works be required elsewhere in the building as a direct result of the alterations, then the person completing the works will be required to reimburse the landlord for the costs of those works.
The landlord stated that it does not have a repairs policy, but the tenant’s handbook provides guidance on repairs. This states that emergency repairs are to be completed within 2-4 hours, urgent repairs to be completed within 24 hours and non-urgent repairs, such as plastering, by appointment.
The landlord’s decant policy states the ‘procedure is to be followed when it is necessary to rehouse tenants for a period of more than four weeks, because work must be carried out to their home that is so disruptive that it would be unreasonable to expect them to remain. It should also establish whether the tenant has any medical or care needs or vulnerabilities that warrant alternative accommodation, even if the work would not normally require the tenant to be decanted.
The landlord said it did not have a separate vulnerable resident’s policy.

Summary of events

The landlord emailed the resident on 21 June 2021, to say that her neighbour was undertaking some refurbishment work in which new flooring would be laid. In order to ensure the new flooring did not create any sound issues, it asked for her contact details to pass to the neighbour. The resident said that she was unaware of the other works that her neighbour was undertaking in the flat above, as the landlord’s email had only communicated about the neighbour’s intent to lay new flooring.
On 24 September 2021, the resident was contacted by her neighbour’s surveyor to carry out an inspection the following day. She agreed to the inspection and the surveyor responded to confirm the date, but then did not turn up. The surveyor called to ask if he could visit on Sunday 26 September 2021, but the resident could not make this date. She said she was available Monday to Friday, but said the surveyor insisted on a Saturday appointment which she felt was unreasonable.
The resident was unhappy about the lack of notice she had received from the landlord about the planned works. The landlord said it was her neighbour’s responsibility to inform all neighbouring properties about the scope and duration of the works. It said that this was one of the conditions for the application to be approved. The neighbour should also have provided their contact details so that the resident could discuss any issues with them. The landlord agreed with the resident that the neighbour did not fulfil these requirements prior to the work starting.
The notes show that the works on the neighbour’s flat began on 27 September 2021. The resident reported to the landlord that the workmen started at 6.30am and she felt that this was not appropriate. The landlord raised the matter with its leasehold operations team who reminded the neighbour that work could only be undertaken during certain hours.
Within the first week of the work commencing, the resident reported a leak and she said she was scared the ceiling would collapse. The leak was rectified, but some damage remained.
No inspection had taken place of the resident’s property by 11 October 2021, and the resident was still waiting to hear about the surveyor’s availability. The resident asked the landlord to remind her neighbour that any access via her property should be arranged in advance. The landlord replied to say it would follow up on the inspection with the surveyor and said that the neighbour had around 12 weeks to complete the works.
As there had been a few issues and the resident was not happy, the landlord sent the resident an email on 19 October 2021, saying it was happy to be a mediator between the two parties in order to resolve any issues and asked for five dates for an upcoming inspection. The landlord said it would then arrange the same with the resident’s neighbour.
On 20 October 2021, the resident responded by email saying she had raised a formal complaint that morning on the phone. The work in the upstairs flat had caused her concern and distress. A leak had caused water damage which still needed to be rectified and there was damage to the ceiling. The complaint was also regarding the lack of communication between the landlord and herself in notifying her of the start date and scope of works. The resident said the conditions in the application had not been met and the noise was unbearable. She also wanted to know whether the work was being carried out in line with the application.
A surveyor carried out an inspection on 25 October 2021 of the resident’s property. No further inspections were deemed necessary at this point. The landlord said that it was working with the neighbour’s contractor to ensure that any damage was rectified to its satisfaction. The resident responded the same day to say that she had a hearing condition and was particularly affected by loud noises as she used hearing aids. She said that she had told the landlord about her disability on ‘numerous occasions’.
The neighbour wrote to the landlord on 27 October 2021 to say that the resident’s son had threatened their workmen and they had reported the incident to the police. The neighbour’s contractor sent the landlord an email to say that they had previously agreed access to the resident’s flat but she was now not allowing access, which had caused delays.
The landlord provided its stage one response on 28 October 2021. It partially upheld the complaint and said:

a. It accepted that the neighbour did not notify the resident of the start date and the scope of the work which was not in line with the conditions of approval.

b. It was responsible for considering the impact of the work on the block and ensuring all regulation standards were met. The work had to be signed off by the landlord, all relevant certificates provided and a satisfactory inspection undertaken. The landlord said it did not manage the day to day running of the project, as this was the responsibility of the leaseholder and their contractor.

c. It acknowledged the inconvenience caused, but said unfortunately the works would have an impact on neighbouring properties. There were set working hours and conditions in place for the contractors. A projected completion date would be requested and provided to the resident.

d. Whilst the resident had asked for a surveyor to assess the damage, the landlord requested that the resident provide photographs. From the photos provided, the landlord assessed the damage to be minor in nature with no structural concerns.

e. It was the responsibility of the contractor to make-good any damage and it was awaiting confirmation they would put it right. It would then arrange a post-work inspection to ensure the work has been carried out to its satisfaction.

f. A response had been given to each of the resident’s requests within a five-working-day time frame. A direct contact email address had been provided to the resident to speed up matters.

On the 2 November 2021, the resident reported that the workmen started work at 7am. The following day, the landlord spoke to the neighbour’s project manager and informed him of his obligations with regards to working hours. It was confirmed by the neighbour’s project manager that the workmen would start work at the appropriate time going forward.
The resident made a noise report to the landlord’s noise team on 3 November 2021. The notes show an operative called the resident to arrange a visit and left a voicemail for her to call back, but she never did. The report was closed and the notes indicated that no visit was necessary.
The resident responded to the landlord on 10 November 2021, to escalate her complaint for the following reasons:
1. She believed she should have been notified of the works by the landlord or it should have made sure that the neighbour had notified her. It was not until five weeks later that she became fully aware of the extensive nature of the works from the stage one response.
2. The landlord had not taken into consideration the impact of the noise on her hearing disability which was sensitive to loud sounds/noises and it impacted her ability to hear.
3. She believed that little was being done to enforce measures to minimise noise, apart from reminding the leaseholder of their obligations.
4. No schedule of works had been provided despite the landlord promising this would be given to her. Further, no projected completion dates had been forthcoming.
5. There was still damage to her son’s bedroom ceiling which was directly above his head and this was causing the resident some distress.
The landlord provided a schedule of works on 12 November 2021, and apologised for the delay in providing this. The work was scheduled to be completed on 17 December 2021, but it was noted that this could change.
On 15 November 2021, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s email which asked for the complaint to be escalated to stage two. The landlord said that it would respond by 13 December 2021.
On 18 and 19 November 2021, the resident reported two further leaks coming from the flat above which had cut out all the power in her flat. The resident also reported that the ceiling had been damaged and she was unhappy that this was the third leak. An emergency appointment was set up to stop the water. The corresponding landlord’s notes show that all the leaks had been stopped the same day and the electrics had been restored.
On 22 November 2021, the landlord emailed the resident to say that it would inspect the neighbour’s property to ensure the works carried out were in line with what had been agreed. It also said that that the surveyor would schedule a visit to the resident’s flat as well.
On 12 December 2021, the resident said that there was damage to both her and her son’s bedroom ceilings and to the upstairs hallway in two separate places. She also said that no work had been carried out in the previous two weeks and wanted an update.
The landlord provided its stage two response on 13 December 2021. It said:
1. It had reiterated the terms of its conditional approval to the neighbour in the strongest terms. The landlord encouraged the resident to report noise issues to the landlord’s noise team so an operative could respond and assess the noise levels.
2. An appointment was scheduled for 25 and 26 January 2022 to complete the repairs. Following this, a surveyor would carry out an inspection of both the resident’s and her neighbour’s property to ensure that all matters were resolved before the alteration works were signed off.
3. It would carry out a manual sound test between the properties and assess the quality of the work to ensure it was completed in accordance with regulations and the repairs were to a satisfactory standard.
4. It had amended its conditional approval letter so that if a resident wished to obtain permission to complete building works, then they must inform neighbouring properties and this was highlighted as a priority step in the process. Further, it will write to all residents in the building where the work was to be undertaken to advise of the duration of the works and provide a contact number to raise any concerns.
5. The complaint was partially upheld due to the delays in resolving the damage to the resident’s property and the time taken to provide a schedule of works.
The resident responded on 14 December 2021 to say she was unhappy with the stage two response and that she wanted a more satisfactory response and compensation. She said that this was in respect of the damage to her property and outstanding repairs, distress caused by the ongoing work, the lack of communication from the landlord and a loss of electricity.
The resident emailed the landlord on 17 December 2021 to ask for an update and said that rubbish outside the property was an ‘eyesore’. She also believed that the work which had taken place was of a poor standard and 12 weeks had passed. The landlord responded the same day to say that the rubbish would be collected on 21 December 2021.
On 22 December 2021, the landlord updated the resident to say that there was no legal precedent for works to be completed within a certain time frame, but said that it would ensure progress was made. On 7 January 2022, it emailed the resident to say that it had addressed the issues regarding rubbish left outside the property. It also said it would chase the neighbour for an accurate timescale to complete the works.
An operative attended the resident’s property on 25 January 2022, but not all the repairs were completed. The resident had to ask the operative to repair the damage to both bedroom ceilings, as they had only been scheduled to complete one job. The resident cancelled an appointment on 26 January 2022 as she said that the operative informed her that they were not completing all of the outstanding repairs.
The landlord organised for a surveyor to visit the resident’s flat around 4 February 2022 and they raised a job to get the repairs sorted.
A report from the landlord dated 11 February 2022 shows that three jobs were raised for carpentry, plastering and painting as part of the resolution to the complaint. The report also said a previous repair from 8 February 2022 required additional work, as the area was not sanded down and painted. The landlord said it had tried to contact the resident on 22 February 2021 to schedule the repairs, but could not get through.
The landlord gave the resident a new schedule of works for the neighbour’s flat on 28 February 2022.
Correspondence from 1 March 2022 show that the landlord had still not completed the required painting to the resident’s bedroom ceiling and hallway, but which had been re-scheduled for 29 April 2022 along with several other repairs. It is not clear whether the other repairs were related to the complaint and damaged caused as a result of the neighbour’s improvements, but they included a hole in the plaster in the upstairs toilet and extensive damp in the boiler cupboard which was to be cleaned and redecorated. There was also damage to the bathroom wall, which needed to be plastered and painted.
After the complaint came to this Service, the landlord sent the resident a further response on 18 October 2023 upholding the complaint. It said:
1. An inspection in January 2022 did not take place. It said that the absence of progress had been deeply unacceptable and it apologised for the delays.
2. Access would be granted to complete the necessary repairs to the residence above to resolve the leak issue. Once this had been completed, the remedial works to the resident’s ceiling would take place. A direct contact was provided for the resident to contact the company over seeing the work.
3. There had been multiple service failures with regards to communication throughout the complaint including: a lack of tracking of commitments, failing to keep the resident updated and a lack of responsiveness to escalate the complaint. The landlord apologised for the inadequate communication and service the resident received. It said it had taken on the feedback and wanted to learn from the experience.
4. The landlord acknowledged the delay with the complaint handling and said it would look to avoid these delays occurring again. After reviewing the complaint, the landlord awarded compensation for the following:
  1. £750 for the delays in progressing the repairs.
  2. £200 for complaint handling service failures.
  3. £100 for the time and trouble pursuing the complaint.
The resident has told this Service that since receiving the offer, she has contacted the landlord via the contact details in its letter, but has not received regular responses. She said that she had not been updated on the continuing works in her neighbour’s property. The landlord has said that the flat above was currently being sold. The new inhabitants may need to continue the works as they were only partially completed.

Assessment and findings

The resident’s reports of damage caused by her neighbour’s building works and the lack of repairs

The resident reported three leaks within the first 8 weeks of the works starting. All the leaks were resolved urgently as they were emergency repairs and therefore the landlord complied with its repair obligations. However, the leaks caused damage to two of the resident’s bedroom ceilings and her hallway.
The landlord initially said that it was the neighbour’s contractor’s responsibility to repair the damage caused by the leaks and said it would arrange for the repairs to be done in the stage one response. Whilst this was reasonable, it did not make an appointment with resident until 25 January 2022. This technically complied with the landlord’s repairs procedure, as it would be classed as a non-urgent repair; however, the landlord could have completed the repairs sooner, especially as the resident was worried the ceiling could have collapsed. The delay to complete the repairs was unnecessary and would have caused the resident some distress and inconvenience.
The landlord has acknowledged that it did not complete an inspection in January 2022 that it committed to as part of its stage 2 response. It should have been more proactive in coming out to inspect the damage and checking what repairs needed to take place and it should have stuck to its action plan to resolve the complaint. Both parties accepted that not all the repairs were completed in January 2022, as the workmen who came were not aware of all the repairs. A survey was eventually completed in February 2022 and further repairs were raised, but had the landlord been more proactive, then it could have tried to complete the repairs sooner.
The landlord did not complete the repairs within a reasonable time frame as it set out in its complaint responses. There was a service failure here by the landlord.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s subsequent complaint

In its response dated 18 October 2023, the landlord said that it needed to complete repairs in the neighbour’s flat to ensure that the leak issue was resolved. Therefore, although the landlord acted reasonably by initially repairing the leaks quickly, it was not sure the issue had been completely rectified two years later. This would have caused the resident and her family a significant amount of distress and inconvenience.
Part of the damage was repaired by the landlord in January 2022, but there were still outstanding repairs. The landlord said that once the leak was remedied, then it would start the remedial works to the resident’s ceiling. The leaks occurred in September and November 2021, and the landlord had still not completed all the repairs by October 2023. This delay was unreasonable and would have caused the resident a significant amount of distress and inconvenience.
The landlord has also not been able to confirm when the remaining works in the flat above would be completed as the neighbour has sold the property. The initial work was supposed to be completed by December 2021, but the finish date was changed several times with further schedules of works being sent to the resident. Since then, it would appear that not much has changed, as the landlord still has not confirmed leaks have been fully contained, however, there is no recent reporting of water ingress effecting the residents property, but yet the repairs have still to be completed.
The landlord accepted that there were multiple service failures, but it also failed the resident by not having a policy or procedure in place to manage the process. This has created a very stressful situation for the resident, and her neighbour has not been held to account for the delays in completing the work. The landlord’s lack of a clear procedure to deal with these matters along with its failures with communication throughout the complaint, lack of tracking of commitments and a failure to keep the resident updated show that there has been additional maladministration with the landlord’s complaint handling.
In the landlord’s response in October 2023, it offered £1,050 compensation including £750 for the delay in the repairs and £300 for having to pursue a complaint and for the service failures in dealing with the complaint. In relation to the failures identified, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes as well as our own guidance on remedies.
The landlord’s October 2023 case review, including its compensation award, cannot fairly be considered part of its internal complaints procedure. Whilst the compensation was both welcome and significant, it postdated the landlord’s final response by around 22 months. It also appeared to have been prompted by the Ombudsman’s involvement. This delay would have left the resident distressed and worried with no resolution for a significant period of time and is evidence of a clear failure with the landlord’s complaint handling.
In the response, a direct contact was provided to the resident so she could contact the contractors overseeing the repairs. The landlord also said it would keep the resident updated with the situation with the flat above. The resident has told this Service that she had tried to communicate directly with the contact, but they had not always responded or provided the information they said they would.
The landlord suggested it would improve its communication with the resident, but the resident has said that her communications continue to be ignored. This has caused further distress for the resident and has further eroded the relationship and trust between the parties. As far as this Service is aware, the situation has not yet been resolved, or the remaining repairs to the ceiling completed, despite the landlord’s letter in October 2023.
Further compensation of £100 should be given to the resident for all the extra time and trouble she has spent on contacting the landlord and continuing with her complaint. The further compensation also accounts for the continued delays with resolving the matter.
A finding of maladministration is appropriate to reflect the service failings by the landlord with the handling of the complaint and the impact upon the resident of those failings.

The notice given to the resident regarding her neighbour’s building works

The landlord has accepted that the neighbour did not contact the resident as they should have to ensure they complied with the approval conditions. The landlord emailed the resident at the end of June, but the email did not clearly explain that there were to be major works happening, as it mainly referred to the neighbour changing the flooring. Therefore, it was understandable that the resident was confused about what works her neighbour was undertaking and she felt she had not been sufficiently notified of the works.
Whilst the landlord has said that it was the neighbour’s responsibility to contact the resident, it failed to check whether the neighbour had completed this task, and in this instance, the resident had not been made aware of the works. The landlord said it would amend its conditional approval letter so that this is highlighted as a priority step in the process. Further, in future it will write to all residents in the building, where work is to be undertaken, to advise of the duration of the works and provide a contact number to raise any concerns. This shows that the landlord has changed its approach and taken on the resident’s feedback during the complaint. This is in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles to learn from outcomes of complaints and implement changes that will avoid similar failings recurring in the future.
The landlord acknowledged its communication failures in its response on 18 October 2023 and apologised to the resident. The landlord should have had sufficient policies and procedures in place to ensure effected parties were aware that it had granted permission for works to commence, and what the scope of the works involved. There was a service failure by the landlord with regards to the lack of notice given to the resident.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise disturbance from the works

The resident reported that her neighbour’s contractors started before 8am on 27 September and 2 November 2021. On both occasions the landlord contacted the neighbour to reiterate the conditions of its approval; for the works to be conducted and what permitted times their contractors could start. This was a reasonable action taken by the landlord and the neighbour assured it that the contractors would not breach the conditions again.
The report of noise made on 2 November 2021 was the only report of noise that the landlord’s noise team received, although the resident had told the landlord throughout the complaint that the works created a lot of noise which she struggled with. Major renovations would have caused some noise disturbance, and whilst this would have undoubtedly caused the resident some distress, this was not due to any service failing by the landlord. The approval conditions set by the landlord would have helped to limit the noise to reasonable hours.
The notes show that the landlord was aware that the resident had a ‘hearing impediment’ from 2016, yet it failed to update its system as no vulnerabilities were recorded. Further, in October 2021, the resident informed the landlord that she had a hearing condition and that loud noises affected her. She also told the landlord that she wore hearing aids, but it did not contact her to see if it could provide any support.
The landlord would have known that the extensive works would create a lot of noise, especially as the property was a maisonette. There is no evidence to suggest the landlord considered whether it was suitable or appropriate for additional measures to be put in place to support the resident and assure her that it was taking her concerns seriously. Furthermore, there is no evidence the landlord considered the vulnerabilities and the aggravating effect of noise from major works would have on the resident in light of her specific vulnerabilities concerning noise, or consulted her prior to granting permission for the works to commence.
If the noise was particularly bothering the resident because of her hearing condition, then it may have been reasonable for the landlord to have explored options such as a temporary decant whilst the works were ongoing. The landlord’s decant policy suggested that this would have been possible if the works were so ‘disruptive’ or if the resident had a vulnerability. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have enquired how the noise was affecting the resident, but there’s no evidence that it did this. If additional works are required to achieve completion, then this may still be an option for the landlord to explore.
The landlord has offered compensation for the repairs and the handling of the complaint, but it did not consider offering compensation for failing to take into account the resident’s vulnerabilities. The landlord should pay further compensation of £175 to reflect this failing. Furthermore, the works have been ongoing for a significant amount of time, which would have caused the resident further distress.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, the Ombudsman finds:
1. Service failure in regards to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damage caused by her neighbour’s building works and the lack of repairs.
2. Service failure in regards to the notice given to the resident regarding her neighbour’s building works.
3. Maladministration in regards to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise disturbance from the works.
4. Maladministration in regards to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Reasons

Not all the repairs have been completed yet, and the initial damage was caused more than two years ago. Whilst the landlord offered compensation and apologised, it also said it would keep the resident updated and improve its communication with her, but she has told this Service that this has not been the case.
The landlord could have done more to check that the neighbour had given the correct notice to the resident. When the landlord emailed the resident, it mainly mentioned work to the floors and therefore it was understandable that the resident was confused. The landlord has acknowledged that it will do more in the future.
With regard to the noise, the landlord did speak to the neighbour to make sure that their workmen complied with the conditions. However, the resident had a hearing condition and the noise would likely have had more of an impact on her. The landlord did not take this into consideration, despite being aware and it did not offer any additional support.
The landlord tried to resolve the complaint by making an offer of compensation only after the complaint had come to the Ombudsman with the repairs still outstanding at that point. These events provide evidence of a failure with the landlord’s complaint handling as it should have provided a resolution as part of its internal complaints procedure.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord should write to the resident within four weeks of the date of this report to apologise for the service failures identified in this report.
The landlord is ordered to assess its policies and procedures for approving adaptations within four weeks of the date of this report, and write to this Service with its findings. This assessment should consider the process for consultation and informing tenants that are effected by planned works. The landlord will provide its procedure to provide an effective monitoring function to ensure compliance with its permissions and approval conditions and to deal with contingencies where the works over run or disproportionately impact other residents. The policy should place emphasis on identifying and considering the specific needs of residents with vulnerabilities for whom the disruption caused by planned works would have an aggravating effect on their ability to enjoy their own properties.
The landlord is ordered to pay the resident an additional £275 compensation (on top of the £1,050 already offered) within four weeks of the date of this report, made up of:
1. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused to her by the lack of communication since its response in October 2023.
2. £175 for the distress and inconvenience caused to her by the failure to consider offering support due to the resident’s hearing condition.
The landlord is ordered to write to the resident within four weeks of the date of this letter to provide an update on the remaining works on the flat above and provide an expected finish date.
The landlord is ordered to complete the remaining repairs in the resident’s property that were related to this issue within four weeks of the date of this report. If following the completion of these repairs, the resident’s property becomes damaged again as a result of subsequent works to complete the adaptation of the neighbours property, the landlord is to complete further repairs in line with its responsive repairs policy.
The landlord should reply to this Service with evidence of compliance within the timescales set out above.