Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

Notting Hill Genesis (NHG) (202307976)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202307976

Notting Hill Genesis (NHG)

27 February 2025


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 the resident’s report of a leak.
  2. The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident has been an assured tenant at the property since 18 October 2021. The property is a 4-bedroom house and at the time of the complaint the resident lived there with her 5 children aged 3, 4, 6, 9, and 17.
  2. On 3 January 2023 the landlord logged that the resident had told it that there were spots of damp and mould in her dining room. The landlord responded to tell her that her housing officer was on annual leave and would inspect these on their return. On 18 January 2023 the resident told the landlord that water was dripping into the dining room. On 21 January 2023 she told the landlord that water was leaking through several areas and had filled up the light bulb.
  3. The resident complained on 30 January 2023. She said that
    1. She had reported a leak and provided photographs on 3 January 2023 and the landlord told her that the housing officer would inspect it when they returned from leave. However, it did not tell her when this would be.
    2. When she called on 18 January 2023, and said that water was coming through the ceiling, it told her that a plumber would not be able to attend for 3 days.
    3. When she called the out of hours service on 21 January 2023 and said that water was leaking into her light bulb an electrician and carpenter attended but could not fix the leak. They said it was probably caused by a leaking radiator above and a different contractor should attend.
    4. The landlord had now given her an appointment to resolve the issue in 20 days’ time which was not acceptable.
  4. The landlord acknowledged receipt of the complaint on 31 January 2023 and provided a stage 1 complaint response on 24 February 2023. It said that:
    1. The resident had reported damp and mould spots in the dining room on 3 January 2023 but the photographs she provided showed water ingress due to a possible leak. It should therefore have logged a repair for leak detection at that point. It also should have told her when her housing officer would return from leave.
    2. It had not classed the job on 18 January 2023 as an emergency because the leak was not uncontainable. It aimed to complete non-emergency repairs within 20 working days.
    3. A contractor attended on 2 February 2023 but could not isolate the leak. A follow up visit was booked for 23 February 2023 to cut through the ceiling to gain access to the pipes.
    4. Contractors had now identified the source of the leak and booked an appointment to rectify it on 1 March 2023. Once the leak was rectified it would repair the ceiling.
    5. It offered £175 compensation comprising £25 for the late response to the complaint and £150 for the inconvenience caused by the leak. It said it would also provide additional compensation for the loss of use of the dining room, which it would calculate once the repair was complete.
  5. On 3 March 2023 the resident asked for an update. The landlord told her that the contractor had ordered parts and would complete the work on 17 March 2023. An engineer attended on 17 March 2023 but could not complete the repair. The landlord booked a further appointment for 28 March 2023.
  6. On 26 March 2023 the resident asked the landlord to escalate the complaint to stage 2 of the complaints process. She said that the repair was still not complete and that the contractor had missed 4 appointments. The landlord acknowledged receipt of the request on 28 March 2023. On 12 May 2023 it told her that it would provide a response in a further 20 working days.
  7. The leak was resolved on 29 March 2023.
  8. The landlord provided a stage 2 complaint response on 2 June 2023. It:
    1. Apologised that it had not attended when she reported that water was dripping from the ceiling and explained that although it classed the repair is urgent, it had not classed it as an emergency.
    2. Acknowledged that it had not met its target to resolve the leak within 20 working days and that it would prioritise the outstanding ceiling repairs.
    3. Confirmed that the contractor had compensated her with a £90 voucher for the missed appointments.
    4. Explained that its policy on damp and mould was for a housing officer to inspect the issue within 10 days. Her housing officer was on leave when she reported the issue. However, they had a ‘buddy’ to cover them while they were on leave but the buddy also had their own 200 properties to manage which was why there was a delay.
    5. Acknowledged that there had been some ‘communication gaps’ on its part.
    6. Offered £370 compensation comprising £250 for the distress and inconvenience caused and £120 for 4 missed appointments.
  9. Contractors completed remedial work to the ceiling in December 2023.

Assessment and findings

Leak

  1. The landlord’s responsive repairs policy says that it will attend emergency repairs within 4 hours and that it should complete a standard repair within 20 days. It gives an example of an emergency repair as a heavy leak or flooding in the property where it is not possible to contain the water, or where water is leaking between floors.
  2. The landlord initially logged that the resident reported that there were damp spots in her dining room. She attached photographs which the landlord later said were not damp spots but showed a leak. However, the landlord did not identify this as a leak at the time. This failure led to a delay because the landlord incorrectly decided to deal with the issue under its damp and mould policy instead of sending a contractor to remedy the leak.
  3. This meant that the landlord referred the job to a housing officer to attend within 10 working days. However, the housing officer was on annual leave which meant that there was a further delay in identifying the cause of the problem. The landlord told the resident that an alternative housing officer should provide cover during times of annual leave. However, we have seen no evidence that it referred the job to another officer. If it had, they may have identified that the job had been incorrectly classified and referred it for leak detection instead. These further errors delayed the resolution further. This caused the resident distress and inconvenience because the leak got worse. It also cost her time and trouble because she had to report the issue again.
  4. When the resident told the landlord that water was dripping into the dining room on 18 January 2023 it told her that a plumber would attend in 3 days. It failed to identify that the leak was coming from the floor above, which according to its policy would mean that it would class the repair as an emergency. This caused the resident further distress because the water was leaking onto her furniture and filled the light bulb with water. It also cost her time and trouble because she had to call the landlord again.
  5. The landlord told the resident that a contractor would resolve the leak on 1 March 2023. However, this did not happen and the landlord did not keep the resident updated. This communication failure cost her further time and trouble because she had to email the landlord for an update.
  6. The landlord acknowledged that the contractor missed 4 appointments. It offered £120 compensation to reflect the inconvenience this caused. This was in addition to £90 vouchers offered by the contractor. We consider this offer to be reasonable in the circumstances.
  7. Overall, it took the landlord 62 working days to resolve the leak. This was not acceptable and the landlord did not comply with its own policy. This caused the resident considerable distress and inconvenience. She told the landlord that the family could not use the dining room to eat in. She also explained how this affected her large family at mealtimes because she had to cook meals in shifts due to the lack of space.
  8. The landlord then took a further 9 months to complete the remedial work to the ceiling which was a further unacceptable delay. This caused further distress and inconvenience to the resident because she was living with a damaged ceiling.
  9. The landlord’s compensation policy states that when a living room is unusable for more than 48 hours longer than its published repair times it will pay compensation of 20% of the daily rent to the resident.
  10. At stage 1 of the complaint process the landlord said that it would pay the resident compensation for the loss of the dining room, which it said it would calculate once it had rectified the leak. However, she advised us that it did not provide this.
  11. We do not consider that the £250 compensation offered by the landlord at stage 2 of the process was proportionate to the distress and inconvenience and time and trouble the resident experienced due to its failing to resolve the leak. The delay in completing the work was unsatisfactory and the landlord did not keep the resident fully updated. It also did not consider that the remedial work was not complete and did not provide a timescale for this.
  12. Therefore, we have ordered the landlord to pay £400 for the distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble caused. This replaces its previous offer of £250 which should be deducted from this amount if already paid. In addition to this it should pay a further £300 to compensate for the loss of the dining room while the leak was outstanding, as offered at stage 1. This reflects approximately 20% of the daily rent for 62 days.
  13. Due to the unacceptable delays caused by the landlord’s failure to correctly identify and classify the repair and the poor communication there was maladministration in its handling of the leak.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s complaint policy says that it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. It says that in exceptional circumstances it may need to change these timescales. In such cases it will agree a new timescale with the resident.
  2. The landlord took 19 working days to respond to the stage 1 complaint and 45 working days to respond to the stage 2 complaint. While it told the resident that it would not be able to keep to the timescales in its policy at both stages, it did not attempt to agree a new timescale with her. This delay, and failure to follow its policy cost the resident time and trouble chasing a response, it also caused her distress and inconvenience because she had to wait longer for a resolution and delayed her access to an investigation by this Service.
  3. Due to the failing identified there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint. We have therefore made an order for it to pay £100 compensation to her to reflect the time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience this caused. This is in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failings identified.
  2. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must pay the resident directly compensation of £920, comprising:
    1. £400 for the distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble caused by its failings in responding to the residents reports of a leak.
    2. £300 to reflect the loss of a room for 62 days.
    3. £100 to reflect the time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling failure.
    4. £120 for missed appointments offered at stage 2.
  3. This replaces the landlord’s previous compensation offer of £370. Therefore, if it has already paid this, it should deduct £370 from the total and pay the remaining £550.
  4. The landlord must review this case and provide us with an update within 8 weeks of the date of this report. This should specifically focus on:
    1. How it triages reports of damp and mould to ensure that it correctly identifies when these are caused by a leak.
    2. Whether further training is required for repairs staff to ensure that leaks between floors are correctly prioritised.
  5. The landlord must provide us with evidence of compliance with these orders by the above deadlines.

Recommendation

  1. The landlord should review the system in place to refer damp and mould reports to a ‘buddy’ when housing officers are on leave. It should also review the effectiveness of the buddy system considering that housing officers have large numbers of properties to manage.