The new improved webform is online now! Residents and representatives can access the form online today.

Westminster City Council (202211865)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202211865

Westminster City Council

14 August 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 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 is about the landlord’s handling of:
    1. Improvement works in the resident’s property.
    2. The associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord. On 30 May 2022, work commenced to install insulation and secondary glazing to improve the energy efficiency of the property; this was done by subcontractors of the landlord’s contractor.
  2. The resident raised a complaint with the landlord and its contractor on 7 June 2022 about the standard of work done by the subcontractors, the time taken to complete it, and the conduct of staff, who had left the site on 3 June 2022. She relayed that they had refused to carry on with work when she made a complaint to the contractor about them and had blamed her for slow progress of the work. The resident added that on 6 June 2022, no workers arrived to continue the work. She wanted an apology and compensation for the standard of work, communication and conduct of the subcontractor. On 10 June 2022, the resident reported that workers had not attended to continue the work.
  3. The landlord issued its stage 1 response to the resident on 8 July 2022 which upheld the complaint. It relayed that its contractor had conducted an internal investigation and implemented measures to improve the service from its subcontractors. It noted that all works were completed on 10 June 2022 and the contractor had offered a £50 voucher to the resident as compensation.
  4. The resident escalated her complaint later on 8 July 2022 as she felt the compensation offered did not adequately address the inconvenience of having to clean up after the work, 3 days of non-attendance and damage to her walls, floor and a mirror. She provided the landlord with a picture of her damaged BT box on 9 August 2022, which she said was caused by its contractor.
  5. The landlord issued its final response to the resident on 25 August 2022, in which it offered £60 compensation for the missed appointments and £20 for its delayed complaint response. It relayed that its contractor would pay for the cost of repairs to the damaged BT box but asserted that it would not provide compensation for the damage to her floor, walls and a mirror, which it attributed to a leak.
  6. The resident informed the Ombudsman on 28 October 2022 that she remained dissatisfied with the conduct of the subcontractors, the standard of work, inaccuracies in the landlord’s complaint response, and damage caused in her property.
  7. On 17 April 2023, the landlord provided a revised offer of compensation to the resident of £260, of which £50 was offered for its handling of the complaint. In this it asserted that examination of photographs had shown that all work had now been completed.
  8. On 30 June 2023, the landlord acknowledged that not all works had, in fact, been completed. It confirmed that it had completed work to the windows and to remedy damage to the wall and mirror, and further work would be completed imminently to address damage to the floor and the resident’s BT box. The landlord increased its offer of compensation to £575 in total, inclusive of the £50 previously offered for its handling of the complaint.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of improvement works

  1. The landlord’s tenancy agreement with the resident confirms that it is responsible for the repair and maintenance of the structure of the property; this includes the walls, ceilings, windows and floors.
  2. Therefore, when the resident reported the standard of work was poor in her stage 1 complaint, the landlord should have carried out an inspection to assess the quality of the work. When the resident reported that damage had been caused to her floor and walls, as well her possessions, the landlord should have considered whether any damage was its repairing obligation. However, there was no evidence that it investigated the resident’s reports of poor workmanship and damage caused by contractor. This was a failure by the landlord to uphold its repairing obligation, as set out in the tenancy agreement.
  3. The landlord’s compensation policy provides for compensation to be paid to a resident where there has been a failure to carry out repairs in a satisfactory manner or where damage has occurred to decoration or fixtures as a result of work done by the landlord. There was no evidence of the landlord considering this at stage 1 or the final stage. This was a failure by the landlord to investigate the issues fully which was highlighted by its mistaken assertion, in its final response, that the reported damage was caused by a leak.
  4. The landlord’s revised offer of compensation on 30 June 2023 acknowledged that window repairs had not initially been carried out satisfactorily, and that it was responsible for rectifying damage to the walls, floor, the resident’s mirror, and her BT box. While it was reasonable for it to acknowledge this and offer compensation, it took an unreasonable length of time to arrive at this position; taking approximately a year to remedy these repairs since the resident’s original complaint on 8 July 2022.
  5. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, available to view online, provides for awards of £100 to £600 for instances of failure by a landlord which led to detriment for the resident over an extended period, but which did not have a permanent impact on the resident. The landlord’s final offer of £525 (excluding the £50 it previously offered for complaint handling) for its handling of the improvement works and subsequent delays was broadly in accordance with this. This offer proportionately recognised the delay and failures exhibited by the landlord in rectifying the damage the resident reported.
  6. However, while the amount offered was reasonable, due to the excessive period of time taken to provide a reasonable remedy, it is considered that service failure has occurred, and the landlord will be ordered to pay the £525 to the resident.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

  1. The landlord’s corporate complaints policy provides for a 2-stage internal complaints procedure. At both stages of this, it should provide its formal response to the resident within 10 working days. If the landlord is unable to respond within this timeframe at either stage, its policy states that it should explain why to the resident and provide an updated timeframe.
  2. The resident raised her stage 1 complaint on 7 June 2022 and the landlord responded to this on 8 July 2022, after 23 working days. This was 13 working days longer than the timeframe specified in its policy. The resident escalated her complaint on 8 July 2022 which it responded to on 25 August 2022 after 34 working days. This was 10 working days longer than the timeframe it provided in its acknowledgement of the complaint on 13 July 2022, in which it explained it had a backlog of complaints.
  3. The landlord therefore delayed unreasonably in responding at both stages of the complaint. This delayed the resolution of the complaint by a total of 23 working days, or almost 5 weeks.
  4. Furthermore, the landlord’s final response on 25 August 2022 mis-attributed the damage reported by the resident to her walls, floor and mirror to a leak. This was a failure by the landlord to investigate the complaint thoroughly and prevented the consideration of compensation or rectification of the damage through the landlord’s procedures.
  5. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance provides for awards of compensation between £50 and £100 where there has been a failure by the landlord which was of short duration and which did not affect the overall outcome of the complaint. The compensation of £50 offered by the landlord on 17 April 2023 was not proportionate to recognise the failures it exhibited in the handling of the complaint. However, when this amount is considered in conjunction with the overall increased offer of compensation it made on 30 June 2023, no further compensation will be awarded in the circumstances, and it will be ordered to pay the £50 to the resident.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of:
    1. Improvement works in the resident’s property.
    2. The associated complaint.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Pay the resident the revised offer of £525 for its failures in the handling of the improvement works.
    2. Pay the resident the £50 compensation it offered for its complaint handling failures.
    3. Carry out a post-inspection of the repair works in the resident’s property to confirm these are complete.
    4. Confirm to the Ombudsman what steps it will take to ensure that it will investigate complaints appropriately and provide responses in accordance with its policy.
    5. Confirm to this service that it has complied with the above orders.