Westminster City Council (202214816)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202214816

Westminster City Council

2 April 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 the landlord’s handling of replacement heating pipework.
The landlord’s record keeping has been investigated.
The landlord’s complaint handling has also been investigated.

Background

The resident is a leaseholder of the property, which is a flat within a grade II listed building. The landlord is a local authority. The flat was purchased in 2005 and the resident sublets the property to tenants. The resident had a representative deal with some communications on her behalf, however for ease, the report refers to all communications as being from the resident.
On 24 May 2021 an emergency repair was raised for a leaking living room radiator and steam coming out of a grill. The landlord attended the same day, but work was suspended whilst an asbestos report was carried out.
Following the confirmation that no asbestos was present, on 2 July 2021 the landlord raised an order for the heating pipework to be changed from copper to steel.
On 4 February 2022 the resident raised a stage 1 complaint as she was dissatisfied with the length of time the works had been ongoing. The resident said that she had been advised to move her tenants out for 2 months, but the works still ongoing 6 months later. She was also dissatisfied with the level of workmanship, due to the dust in the property and that the contractors had been writing on the walls. In order to resolve the complaint, the resident explained that she would like the flat to be put back to how it was, compensation for rent that had been lost, the flooring replaced and a deep clean of the property.
On 23 February 2022 the landlord provided its stage 1 response, where it said that:
1. A repair was raised on 24 May 2021 and works were raised to re-pipe the property on 2 July 2021.
2. Extensive works had been carried out and a new bathroom was installed as a gesture of goodwill.
3. The works were delayed due to access issues but were completed on 14 January 2022 and the keys were handed back on 26 January 2022.
4. Any internal damage to decorations needed to be claimed via the buildings insurance.
5. The complaint was not upheld as it had carried out a full bathroom suite renewal for the inconvenience caused.
On 4 May 2022, an order was raised for new flooring to be fitted in the living area and kitchen.
On 6 October 2022 the complaint was escalated to stage 2. The reasons for escalated were:
1. The property had been left in an unacceptable condition and would need further works to get it back to a habitable state.
2. The operatives had been using the unfunctional toilet within the property and left it in an unacceptable state.
3. The bathroom could not be classed as a gesture of goodwill as it was damaged and then removed by the landlord.
4. It had been going on for a number of months and had resulted in lost rental income of £2,000 per month, plus fees of £800 for a third party to attend the property and deal with the situation on the resident’s behalf.
On 22 December 2022 the landlord provided its stage 2 response, which said that:
1. The complaint had been upheld.
2. Extensive works were needed to the pipes, which were located behind a tiled wall within the bathroom and the bath had to be moved to provide access.
3. It should have spoken with the resident to agree a way forward about what work was going to be done. However, it could not determine what had happened due to poor record keeping and a staff member leaving.
4. The stage 1 response was incorrect and the bathroom was not replaced as gesture of goodwill. The landlord was responsible for making good the damage and installing a new bathroom.
5. In relation to putting things right, the landlord:
  1. Apologised for the failings and confirmed that it had spoken to the contractors in relation to its conduct.
  2. Explained that rental loss needed to be claimed through the buildings insurance company and offered assistance with pursuing a claim.
  3. Offered £100 for complaint handling failures, £400 for the poor experience and up to £1,000 (on receipt of copies of invoices) for costs of returning the property to a lettable standard.
On 3 May 2023, the resident contacted the Ombudsman and confirmed that she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s compensation offer and felt the offer should be over £10,000.
On 15 December 2023, the landlord wrote to the resident and said that it had conducted a further complaint review. The landlord said:
1. Standard of Works:
  1. It apologised for the damage that was caused to the property and that the resident had to arrange for a builder to complete the works and get the property back to a lettable standard.
  2. It would reimburse up to the value of £1,000, on receipt of copies of invoices.
2. Reimbursement of rent:
  1. As confirmed as part of the lease agreement, any claims need to be made via its insurance.
  2. Costs for internal damage also needed to be claimed against the building insurance. The premium formed part of the monthly service charge.
  3. Details were provided for how to submit a claim and any further queries.
3. Compensation:
  1. It had reviewed its compensation offer and increased the total to £1,912.50, plus (up to the value of) £1,000 for the remedial building works.
  2. This was broken down into £1062.50 for delay in completing the works, £750 for inconvenience and £100 poor complaint handling.

Assessment and findings

The Ombudsman’s approach.

The Ombudsman’s role is to determine complaints by reference to what is fair in all the circumstances and decide if the landlord is responsible for maladministration or service failure.
When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its dispute resolution principles. These are high-level good practice guidance developed from the Ombudsman’s experience of resolving disputes, for use by everyone involved in the complaints process. There are only three principles driving effective dispute resolution:
1. Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes
2. Put things right, and
3. Learn from outcomes.
The Ombudsman must first consider whether a failing on the part of the landlord occurred and, if so, whether this led to any adverse effect or detriment to the resident. If it is found that a failing did lead to an adverse effect, the investigation will then consider whether the landlord has taken enough action to ‘put things right’ and ‘learn from outcomes’.

Scope of investigation.

Within the complaint to the landlord and the Ombudsman, the resident has said that she wants the landlord to reimburse her for the lost rental income, while the repairs were carried out within the property.
Although this Service can consider requests for compensation in line with our remedies guidance for matters such as delay and distress, the request to be compensated for rental losses are better suited to a legal claim or claim against insurance.
This is because this Service does not have the jurisdiction to award damages, nor does it have the necessary expertise to assess loss. Therefore, this aspect of the resident’s complaint has not been investigated.

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of replacement heating pipework

The resident’s lease says that the landlord is responsible for ‘’…. all cisterns, tanks, central heating apparatus…not used solely for the purpose of the demised premises…’’.
The leaseholder handbook says that dependant on the lease, in general the landlord has the right to maintain gas pipes from any other part of the block which run through the property. It will enter and remain in the home for a reasonable period, subject to reasonable notice and carry out any works. It also confirms that the landlord is responsible for communal heating.
The leaseholder handbook does not give any timeframes with regards to when the landlord will complete repairs, but the landlord’s tenant handbook states that it classifies repairs in 3 priorities: immediate, urgent and non-urgent. Non-urgent repairs are classed as more substantial repairs, such as major works, structural work and plastering. The handbook states that the landlord will attend and complete work within 28 working days.
Leaseholders are usually responsible for repairs within their own property. Where their property is located within a block managed by a landlord, it is often the case that the landlord is responsible for communal repairs and block maintenance. If a leaseholder’s heating system is one which services their property only, it would be the leaseholder’s responsibility to arrange repairs should things go wrong. Where a heating system is considered communal, servicing more than one property, it is likely to be the landlord’s responsibility to maintain and repair.
In this case, the landlord confirmed that it was responsible for these repairs and undertook extensive works. This meant the landlord’s repair policies and guidance became applicable.
In line with the landlord’s repair timescales, the works should have been completed within 28 days. However, based on the repair records provided, it took the landlord over 37 weeks to complete the works. The Ombudsman acknowledges that an asbestos check was required which would have extended the target date of the works by a number of weeks, but the overall timeframe was unreasonable.
When major works are carried out to a property the Ombudsman would expect to see evidence that the landlord was in regular communication with the resident and keeping her up to date with the works, such as providing a schedule of works and an estimated date for completion. There is no evidence that the landlord did this.
Within the final response, the landlord upheld the resident’s complaint and acknowledged that there were extensive delays, its records were poor and that the resident had to arrange to get the property to a lettable standard.
In an attempt to put things right for the resident, it offered the resident £400 compensation and on receipt of invoices, it would reimburse up to £1,000 for any work to get the property back to a lettable standard. The response further confirmed that as part of its learning, it would review the way in which it carries out post inspections.
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 offer to reimburse the resident for expenses she incurred as a result of getting the property back to a lettable standard, show that the landlord acknowledged it failings and was trying to put things right. It was also reasonable for the landlord to request copies of invoices before any payments were made.
the Ombudsman has considered the inconvenience caused to the resident as a result of the delay and the offer made by the landlord. The landlord’s compensation policy says that it will make discretionary compensation payments, which are split into 3 categories:
1. Low impact, for failures which result in some impact – Up to £250
2. Medium impact, for failures which have had a moderate degree of inconvenience or distress – between £250 and £700
3. High impact, for failures which have had a severe long-term impact – £700 and above.
As part of a review in December 2023, the landlord increased its offer from £400 to a total of £1,812.50.
The Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies recommends payments of between £100 and £600 for failures which have had no permanent impact. Therefore, the landlord’s offer was appropriate, as the landlord’s failure adversely impacted the resident, but had no permanent impact.
It should be noted that the Ombudsman recommends a 2-stage complaints process and the decision to conduct a further review added an unnecessary step. The landlord should have made this offer of redress as part of its initial internal complaints procedure, rather than following contact with the Ombudsman. As this did not happen a finding of service failure has been made.
The resident also said within her stage 2 escalation that she had incurred expenses of £800 so that a builder could attend the property on her behalf to deal with the issues. While the Ombudsman acknowledges that the resident lives in a different area of the country to the property, the landlord is not responsible for costs incurred as a result of individual’s circumstances.
Finally, when the resident raised the issue of lost rental income, it would have been appropriate for her to have been signposted to the landlord’s public liability insurer. If the resident decided to make a claim, they would be able to assess the claim and reach a decision on whether it was a result of any negligence by the landlord. An order has been made, below, for the landlord to give the resident information about its insurer.

The landlord’s record keeping.

As outlined above, it is very concerning that the landlord is unable to access full and detailed repair records, history and completion information in relation to the repairs and works which were carried out. Without this information it may have been difficult for the Ombudsman to carry out a full and comprehensive investigation into the landlord’s actions.
This also meant that the landlord did not have a full picture of the events, which led to the complaint. Which in turn would have caused frustration and inconvenience to the resident.
The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on knowledge and information management states that “good knowledge and information management is crucial to any organisation’s ability to perform and achieve its mission…If information is not created correctly, it has less integrity and cannot be relied on. This can be either a complete absence of information, or inaccurate and partial information… The failings to create and record information accurately results in landlords not taking appropriate and timely action, missing opportunities to identify that actions were wrong or inadequate, and contributing to inadequate communication and redress. Incorrect information can also cause real detriment…[and] contribute to an increased risk to a resident’s health and safety…[Vulnerabilities] may also mean that reasonable adjustments are appropriate to actively prevent harm or distress.”
The spotlight report therefore recommends that landlords take steps to improve their knowledge and information management, including by implementing a strategy for this, benchmarking against other organisations’ good practice, reviewing internal guidance around recording vulnerabilities, and carrying out appropriate staff training.
However, it is of concern that there is no indication that the landlord has taken such steps to do so in light of its poor record keeping in the resident’s case, as outlined above. Therefore, an order has been made for the landlord to pay the resident £150 compensation.
The landlord has also been recommended below to take steps to learn from the outcome of the resident’s case by reviewing its record keeping practices in relation to inspections, repairs and residents’ vulnerabilities, including in light of the findings of this report and the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on knowledge and information management.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The landlord’s corporate complaints policy shows that it operates a 2-stage procedure. It says that stage 1 complaints will be responded to within 10 working days, and stage 2 complaints will be responded to within 20 working days.
When the resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 6 October 2022, there is no evidence to show that the landlord acknowledged the complaint.
On 9 October 2022 the resident contacted the Ombudsman for assistance in escalating her complaint. The Ombudsman wrote to the landlord on 2 November 2022 and asked it to respond to the resident’s complaint.
On 9 November 2022 the landlord confirmed that it was investigating the resident’s complaint and would provide a response by 16 November 2022. There is evidence to show that on 17 and 25 November and 16 December 2022 the landlord contacted the Ombudsman and resident to say that it needed additional time to investigate the complaint.
A final response was sent on 22 December 2022, which was 77 working days after it had received the escalation. While the Ombudsman acknowledges that delays can happen and the landlord kept the resident up to date, it was significantly outside of the landlord’s published timescale and an unreasonable amount of time to elapse.
As part of its final response the landlord acknowledged there had been failings relating to the delay in providing a response. It confirmed that as part of its learning it would conduct an internal review of the handling of the complaint and offered £100 compensation.
It is positive to see that the landlord identified its own failings, and furthermore detailed the steps it was taking in order to learn from the outcome. It also offered compensation in an attempt to put things right for the resident, which is in line with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles.
The £100 compensation was appropriate and reasonable. It was also in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, as the failings had a short lived impact. Therefore, an order of reasonable redress has been made.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure with the landlord’s handling of replacement heating pipework.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of its record keeping.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the complaint about the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

The landlord is ordered to write to the resident and apologise for the failures identified within 4 weeks of the determination.
These determinations are based on the landlord’s offer of £1,912.50 financial compensation made to the resident in December 2023. The landlord should ensure that, should the resident accept the compensation, it pays this sum directly to the resident within 4 weeks of the date of this determination.
The landlord is also ordered to pay the resident £150 for distress and inconvenience in relation to the record keeping failures.
The landlord is also ordered to contact the resident and request copies of invoices in relation to the expenses incurred to get the property back to a reasonable standard within 4 weeks of the date of this determination. The landlord should then review the information and reimburse the resident accordingly, up to the value of £1,000 within 4 weeks of receipt of information.
The landlord should provide the resident with details of its public liability insurer.
The landlord is to carry out a case review in relation to the resident’s case and identify why it took so long to complete the repairs within 8 weeks of the date of the determination.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord:
1. Review its record keeping practices in relation to inspections, repairs and residents’ vulnerabilities, including in light of the findings of this report and the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on knowledge and information management.
2. Review its staff’s training needs with regard to record keeping, complaint handling and remedies, including in light of the findings of this report, the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code, and our remedies guidance.