Westminster City Council (202126345)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202126345

Westminster City Council

27 November 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Response to the resident’s reports about service charges, including administration, provision of services and repairs.
2. Communication in relation to the service charge.
3. Handling of repairs to the resident’s windows.

Jurisdiction

What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to this service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
In this case, the resident requested her service charge be refunded as she did not believe it was reasonable in light of the services provided. Paragraph 42 (f) of the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not consider complaints which in the Ombudsman’s opinion, concern matters where it could be quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal or procedure. In this case, whether it was reasonable for the resident to pay the service charge, would most effectively be decided upon by the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber), which could potentially make a legally binding decision about the service charge liability and reasonableness.
Whilst the Ombudsman cannot consider whether the resident paying the service charge was reasonable. The Ombudsman can consider the landlord’s communication, including its response to the concerns raised about the charges and the services provided in line with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles. In this respect, the Ombudsman will consider whether a landlord has acted fairly, given all the circumstances of a case, whether it has put right any identified service failures and, where appropriate, whether it has learnt from the outcomes of the individual complaint so as to improve its overall service delivery.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a leaseholder of the property which is a two bedroom flat. The landlord has advised this Service that it had no disabilities or vulnerabilities recorded for the resident.
The resident’s lease states as follows:
1. The landlord is responsible for the window frames in the property, whilst the glass in the windows is the resident’s responsibility.
2. The service charge payable by residents covers minor repairs and maintenance carried out to communal areas.
3. If a service is provided to a block, the charge is based on the total cost of the service, shared across the whole block.
4. The landlord provides cleaning in the communal areas, which is carried out to a set schedule. This is usually twice a week within individual blocks, but can be different depending on the size of the block or estate.
The landlord’s leaseholder handbook states that the landlord is responsible for communal windows frames and glazing. No repair timescales are provided.
The landlord has a two stage complaints process. At stage 1 it aims to respond within 10 working days and at stage 2 it aims to respond within 20 working days. At either stage, if more time is needed, it will inform the resident.

Summary of events

In September and November 2020 the landlord undertook repairs to the roof of the block following leaks into the communal stairwell area and another tenants property. The works completed were cleaning of the guttering and repairs to brickwork.
During this time period, on 21 October 2020, the resident advised the landlord that a window in the communal stairwell was jammed and would not open or close. A contractor attended on 23 October 2020 and completed remedial repairs. This Service has not seen any further correspondence in respect of this matter until 31 January 2022 (referred to later in this summary of events).
On 10 August 2021 the resident advised the landlord that the putty on the windows in her property was coming off and she provided photographs. The landlord noted internally on 16 August 2021 that the windows looked “very wrecked”.
Following this, there is a gap in the records of correspondence until 24 November 2021 when the landlord noted internally that it had received a complaint from another tenant stating that the repairs to the roof had not resolved the leak. The surveyor stated that the time that had passed since the repairs had been completed indicated that the roof and water ingress was resolved in 2020 and that the new leak was unrelated.
On 30 December 2021 the resident advised the landlord that a neighbour had submitted a complaint about liability for the service charge (it is not clear if the resident was referring to the communal cleaning or issues with the roof). The resident stated that the neighbour’s complaint about the service charge also applied to her. She stated that she expected the service charge to be waived for the whole block and stated that the landlord had agreed to this. She advised that she was submitting this as a complaint herself as the landlord kept asking for payment of the service charge.
On 12 January 2022 the landlord noted internally that the resident had advised that the block had not been cleaned during November and December of 2021 and that cleaning had not taken place until 4 January 2022.
That same day the landlord’s surveyor noted that it had “no major indication” that the roof required replacement. The landlord discussed this further on 17 January 2022 and noted that it believed the block had been scheduled for a replacement roof but this had been retracted when the residents put in an application to purchase the freehold of the property. It is not clear when this application had been made or when the sale was completed, however the landlord provided information to this Service that the works are due to take place in 2024/25.
The resident’s local Councillor contacted the landlord on 20 January 2022 and advised the landlord that the resident had reported that no works had been done in the building for 10 years and that the windows would not close properly. The landlord responded to the Councillor the same day and advised that it had carried out estate inspections in November and December 2021 and had found that the cleaning was of a good standard. It advised that the block was cleaned on a weekly basis and spot checks were also carried out. It had left a message for the resident to make contact if she wished to discuss the matter further.
On 26 January 2022 the landlord sent a stage 1 to the resident’s complaints. It advised that it had combined her complaint from 30 December 2021 (service charge) and 6 January 2022 about a lack of cleaning (this Service has not had sight of this complaint) and had addressed them together as follows:
1. Two repairs to the roof had been carried out in 2020 after issues had been reported by another tenant. It had inspected the works after completion and confirmed they had been completed to a good standard. This Service has not had sight of this inspection. The next report it received of a leak was in March 2021 which was found to be unrelated to the previous roof repairs. Therefore, no adjustments to the service charge was due for the works to the roof.
2. The roof was not scheduled for replacement in the upcoming years but it had referred the matter to its Asset Strategy Team to review.
3. It had carried out estate inspections in November and December 2021. The records of these showed that cleaning had been carried out to a good standard. It advised that the block was cleaned on a weekly basis and that spot checks were also carried out.
4. It concluded that the resident’s complaints were not upheld. It however acknowledged that there had been a delay in it providing the stage 1 response and offered £20 compensation for this delay. It signposted the resident on how to escalate the matter.
On 31 January 2022 the resident escalated her complaint. She reiterated her aspects of complaint and said as follows:
1. The cleaning contract was for weekly cleaning however the block had not been cleaned in November or December 2021. It was only cleaned in January 2022 after other neighbours had complained. The monthly block inspections did not take place.
2. She had complained to the landlord about the leak at the same time as her neighbour (it is not clear if this was the 2020 or 2021 leak). An engineer attended to inspect but never returned. The landlord did not respond to her complaint about the leak.
3. The ceiling on the service stairway was cracked due to the leak.
4. The window on the service stairway did not close. An engineer had attended to make it safe but cold air was coming in through the window which increased her heating bills.
5. The landlord had told a neighbour that it would remove the service charge (£633) for all residents.
6. The windows at her property let water in during periods of heavy rain.
The landlord acknowledged the complaint escalation on 1 February 2022.
On 3 February 2022 the landlord held a meeting with the resident, its Communal Repairs Manager and the cleaning company Contracts Manager. During this meeting the landlord reiterated that inspections had been carried out in November 2021, December 2021 and January 2022, which had concluded that the cleaning was of a good standard. Inspections of the block had also been carried out by the cleaning supervisor during December 2021, January 2022 and February 2022 which showed that the cleaning was of a satisfactory standard. These inspections were provided to this Service.
A surveyor attended the block on 14 February 2022 to inspect the communal stairway. The surveyor subsequently raised jobs for timber care works to the communal windows and painting and decorating to the communal ceilings and walls. The target date for the works to be completed was 14 March 2022.
On 22 February 2022 the landlord responded to the complaint at stage 2 and stated as follows:
1. It had advised the other tenant that it would look into the service charge but it had subsequently confirmed that no credit was due as the charges were reasonable. The leaks were unrelated to the completed repairs and therefore no adjustment in service charge was due to any of the residents.
2. It had held a meeting with the resident about the cleaning issues and had confirmed that cleaning had been done satisfactorily and that it had photographic evidence of this.
3. It apologised that the condition of the ceiling above the service staircase had not been previously “picked up”. Its surveyor had noted that some minor decorative repairs were required. An order had been raised for this work to be completed with a target completion date of 14 March 2022.
4. The issue with the stairwell window had been reported on 21 October 2020 and a contractor attended on 23 October 2020 and completed remedial repairs. Following the subsequent report of this issue in 2022, its surveyor found that the windows were opening and closing normally and the locks were operating correctly. The surveyor noted some minor timber care repairs to the frames and a job had been raised for this to be carried out by 14 March 2022.
5. It had inspected the windows within the resident’s property on 24 January 2022 and it had raised an order for repairs. An appointment had been arranged for 21 February 2022.
6. The landlord concluded that one aspect of the resident’s complaint had been upheld, namely in relation to the ceiling above the service stairwell. It provided details on how the resident could refer her complaint to this Service.
On 2 March 2022 the resident referred her complaint to this Service and stated as follows:
1. Little to no maintenance had been carried out on the building over the last year.
2. The landlord’s repair of the windows was not progressing.
3. There had been a further leak into the communal staircase area.
4. The landlord repaired the communal window but it was still open by around 3cm and let cold air in.
5. The landlord had not carried out cyclical works in 14 years.
6. She requested a reimbursement of service charges for services not provided.

Correspondence after the referral to the Housing Ombudsman

In March 2022 internal notes from the landlord stated that it had offered for the windows in the block to be renewed but the leaseholders had declined to pay.
On 17 March 2022 the resident updated this Service as follows:
1. The work to the stairway ceiling had not been completed.
2. The appointment arranged for 21 February 2022 for work to be done to her windows did not take place and the landlord had not contacted her.
The landlord enquired internally about the works to the resident’s windows on 19 May 2022. It noted the following day that two engineers had attended but the resident had declined access. A team leader had subsequently attended (the date has not been provided) and advised that putty repairs to three windows was required. This work was scheduled for 16 June 2022.
The resident submitted a new complaint on 20 September 2022 about the landlord’s handling of the repairs to her windows. The landlord responded at stage 1 in October 2022 and upheld this complaint and offered compensation. The resident escalated this in November 2022.
The landlord noted internally in November 2022 that major works were due at the block in 2023/24. It noted that the scope was being worked on but the issues raised by the resident were likely to be covered.
On 7 July 2023 the landlord responded to the resident’s outstanding complaint at stage 2 and stated as follows:
1. At Stage 1 it did not consider the residents’ concerns that the leak was one which had recurred, and it did not look back over its records. It apologised for this. It had investigated and acknowledged that the first report it received of a leak from the roof was in August 2021.
2. The first report of an issue with the staircase or common areas was from the resident in January 2022.
3. It had been unable to identify any further reports of leaks from the roof following roofing works which were completed in September 2022.
4. After speaking to the resident on 5 June 2023, it agreed to carry out further investigations and found a new repair unrelated to the previous area of roof. It was awaiting a quote for this repair.
5. As a leaseholder the resident was responsible for maintaining the decorations within the property and when they are damaged by a leak she may make a claim on the landlord’s building insurance.
6. The decoration required in the common parts were limited and it was awaiting a decision on the major works given the possibility of the freehold sale.
7. It apologised for the delay in responding to the complaint and offered compensation as follows:
  1. £100 for service failings regarding the handling of the complaint the delays.
  2. £350 for the delays, and inconvenience caused due to outstanding repairs.
  3. £50 for poor communication and the time and trouble pursing the complaint.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

Under the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles landlords should be given the opportunity to investigate and respond to issues raised and try to put them right prior to the involvement of this Service. As the following aspects of complaint were not raised within the resident’s original complaints or were complained about only after the referral to this Service, they do not form part of this investigation:
1. Cyclical works not having been carried out for 14 years.
It has been noted by this Service that there was a slight delay in the landlord responding to the complaint at stage 1. The landlord acknowledged this and offered a suitable remedy which was appropriate action as such no further review of the complaint handling will be conducted by the Ombudsman.
Given the resident’s subsequent complaint from September 2022 involved a continuation of the issues within her original complaint, the landlord’s response has been considered within this investigation.

Response to the resident’s reports about service charges, including administration, provision of services and repairs.

These issues have been addressed separately for clarity.

Communal cleaning

It is the resident’s stance that the communal cleaning services, as paid for by the service charge, did not take place as they should. The resident’s lease is clear that the landlord has the discretion to arrange for such cleaning services to take place at intervals suitable to the block. The landlord has been clear in communication to the resident that cleaning of the block was carried out weekly. It was appropriate for the landlord to determine this schedule in line with the tenancy agreement.
Following the resident seeking the assistance of her local Councillor in her complaint, the landlord confirmed that inspections had been carried out monthly which has not revealed any issues nor had any spot checks. These inspection reports have been provided to this Service for the period in question. When the resident further disputed the cleaning, the landlord arranged a meeting with the resident, its Communal Repairs Manager and the cleaning company Contracts Manager. This was appropriate action to take to try to resolve the resident’s concerns and demonstrated that the landlord had taken the resident’s concerns seriously. It reassured the resident that since her complaint, further inspections had been carried out which had not revealed any issues and it noted that it had photographs to support its findings.
Through its actions, the landlord demonstrated that it has listened to the resident’s concerns and addressed these by holding a meeting, advising of the checks it was doing and how it was monitoring the cleaning schedule. Although it is noted that the landlord’s actions did not alter the resident’s perception, it took reasonable and proportionate steps to try to alleviate her concerns.

Communal windows

The resident initially raised this issues in October 2020 and the landlord arranged for a repair two days later. This Service has not seen any evidence that the resident made the landlord aware of this issue again until 31 January 2022 when she advised that it did not close properly. Following this, the landlord arranged for a surveyor to attend on 14 February 2022 at which point no issues were identified with the functionality of the window.
It is noted that the landlord’s repairs information provided to leaseholders outlines the landlord’s repair responsibilities, but it does not include the timeframe within which the landlord should inspect or complete any repair. A recommendation has been made in respect of this below. In this case the landlord inspected the communal window within 10 working days which was reasonable.
It is noted that the resident advised this Service in March 2022 that the communal window did not close properly and that there was a gap of around 3cm. This Service has not seen any evidence of this concern having been reported to the landlord. Given the resident’s concern that the window was still not functioning correctly, it is recommended that the landlord inspect this window.
In conclusion, the landlord acted upon the resident’s report of the window letting in cold air within a reasonable timeframe. It was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the subsequent advice of its surveyor that the window was functioning and no repair, other than some timber care, was required.

Stairwell ceiling

The landlord attended to inspect the ceiling area on 14 February 2022 which was within 10 working days of the resident reporting the cracks on 31 Janaury 2022. Upon inspection, painting and decorating was identified as being required which it stated would be completed by 14 March 2022. Since referring her case to this Service the landlord confirmed to the resident in July 2023 that this work would not be completed until the situation with the possible purchase of the freehold was resolved. Although the landlord apologised for not having picked up this issue sooner and it upheld this aspect of the resident’s complaint, it should have updated the resident sooner that this work was on pause and the reasons for this. By not doing so, the landlord inappropriately raised the resident’s expectations that the work would be completed in March 2022 as advised. This amounts to a service failure.
To acknowledge the impact of the landlord’s failings in respect of the repair to the communal staircase ceiling and the frustration this caused to the resident of this being outstanding and the landlord’s lack of communication for over 16 months, compensation of £100 has been ordered. This is in line with the Housing Ombudsman remedies guidance where there was a failure which adversely affected the resident.

Communication in relation to the service charge

As noted above it is outside the remit of this Service to determine whether the service charge or part of the service charge should be refunded to the resident. However, we can look into whether the landlord had taken reasonable steps to respond to the resident’s concerns.
When the resident disputed her liability for the full service charge, the landlord made internal enquires with its surveyor and relied on the advice given by the surveyor about the repairs to the roof which were provided to this Service. It explained within its stage 1 response that the works carried out to the roof on 2020 had been done to a good standard and that the subsequent leak in March 2021 was unrelated. Following this, it reasonably concluded that no adjustments to the service charge were due for the works to the roof.
The landlord further clarified its position within the stage 2 response and explained that it had advised other tenants that it would “look into” the service charge but it had concluded that the charges were reasonable and no residents were due an adjustment.
The landlord demonstrated a resident centred approach by considering the residents views (and those of other tenants) in respect of the service charge. From the records of correspondence seen by this Service the landlord has been consistent in its explanation to the resident that the work to the roof had been carried out appropriately based on the advice of its surveyor. As such the landlord’s consideration of the resident’s request was reasonable and there was no maladministration in respect of this aspect of complaint.

Repairs of the resident’s windows

The resident advised the landlord of issues with the putty on her windows in August 2021 following which the landlord acknowledged internally that the windows looked “very wrecked”. Despite the landlord having acknowledged this, this Service has not seen any evidence to show that the landlord took any action to resolve the issue at the time. This was not reasonable. As the landlord was responsible for the resident’s window frames, it should have arranged for appropriate inspection and repairs to be carried out within a reasonable time period.
Within the stage 2 complaint response the landlord stated that it had inspected the resident’s windows on 24 January 2022 and had identified repairs required. No explanation was given for it not having arranged repairs in 2021 and no apology was given to the resident for the delay of 5 months in raising the repairs. Despite the landlord being aware of the issue in August 2021 and raising the repairs in Janaury 2022, it did not schedule the repair to take place until 16 June 2022. This timeframe of 10 months was not reasonable.
It is noted that since bringing her complaint to this Service, the resident subsequently raised a further complaint via the landlord’s internal complaint process in respect of its handling of the repairs to her windows. Since bringing her original complaint to this Service, the landlord offered £60 compensation at stage 1 in October 2022 for its delay in carrying out the repairs. The resident subsequently escalated this to stage two and the landlord increased its offer of compensation to £350 for the delays, and inconvenience caused.
This Service has not seen evidence prior to October 2022 that the landlord acknowledged that it failed to act appropriately following the issue being identified in August 2021. As such the resident was left with windows which, in the landlord’s own words were ‘wrecked’ from August 2021 to June 2022 (covering the winter period). The landlord did not demonstrate any empathy to the resident’s situation prior to October 2022 and did not take action at the time to put things right during this time.
Where things have gone wrong, landlord’s are expected to take action to put things right for the resident. The landlord’s offer of £350 compensation for the delay in this repair went some way to acknowledge the distress and inconvenience caused. This Service however has determined that, using the Housing Ombudsman remedies guidance, where there was a failure which adversely affected the resident, compensation of £400 has been ordered. This increased amount is appropriate length the length of time the matter was unresolved and that the resident was without fully maintained windows over the winter period. As such there was a service failure in the landlord’s handling of the repairs to the resident’s windows.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman scheme there was a service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about service charges, including administration, provision of services and repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman scheme there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request to be reimbursed the service charge.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman scheme there was a service failure in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s windows.

Reasons

The landlord responded appropriately to some of the resident’s concerns about the communal issues. It however advised that the staircase ceiling would be resolved in March 2022. It subsequently took the decision not to undertake this work pending the possible sale of the freehold. It did not inform the resident of this until July 2023.
The landlord considered the resident’s request in respect of her service charge. It appropriately explained the reason for it not being able to offer her a refund.
The landlord did not take appropriate action to repair the resident’s windows when it became aware of issues with them in August 2021. The landlord did not schedule the repair work until June 2022, 10 months after it was aware of the condition of the windows. The landlord’s offer of compensation was not commensurate to acknowledge the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.

Orders and Recommendations

Orders

The landlord is ordered to take the following action within four weeks of the date of this report, and provide evidence of compliance to this Service:
1. Apologise to the resident for the failures identified in this case.
2. Pay £500 compensation to the resident made up as follows:
  1. £100 to acknowledge the frustration caused to the resident of the landlord’s lack of action in respect of the communal staircase ceiling for over 16 months.
  2. £400 to acknowledge the impact of the delay that actioning the repairs of the resident windows had on her. This is to be paid direct to the resident and not to her rent or service charge account.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord review the leaseholder handbook to consider whether repair timescales for repairs which are the landlord’s responsibility should be included.
It is recommended that the landlord inspect the communal stairwell window to check that it closes as it should.