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

Notting Hill Genesis (202233119)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202233119

Notting Hill Genesis (NHG)

18 March 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of damp and mould at the property.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the complaint handling in this case.

Background and summary of events

Background

  1. The resident lives in a 2-bedroom 1st floor flat of a 3 storey Victorian building. The landlord rents the property to the resident on an assured tenancy agreement.
  2. The resident has informed this Service of vulnerabilities that include COPD, asthma and mental health. The landlord is aware the resident is hard of hearing.
  3. Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 and the tenancy agreement places responsibilities on the landlord to maintain the property. This includes the structure, exterior, fixture and fittings within the property.
  4. The landlord commits to ensure all properties are kept in a good state of repair; it will provide a prompt, consistent and cost-effective responsive repair service. It will carry out emergency repairs within 24 hours. It also commits to carry out simple repairs within 20 working days and it says it will plan more complex repairs and place them on an annual schedule.
  5. The Housing Act 2004 ensures landlords are responsible for assessing hazards and risks within its rented homes. When assessing any such hazards and risks, the assessment should be considered in line with the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) and damp and mould growth are potential hazards that may require remedy.
  6. The landlord has a damp procedure that provides guidance to officers as to how to deal with reports of damp, how to check for damp and identify necessary repairs. It says this may include the appointment of a damp specialist.
  7. The landlord’s complaints procedure refers to a ‘quick fix’ that should be resolved within 48 hours. The officer receiving the complaint has to decide whether this applies or whether the matter needs to be escalated to a stage 1 complaint. It commits to respond at stage 1 within 10 working days and if the resident remains dissatisfied, it will review the complaint at stage 2 of its procedure within 20 working days.

Summary of events

  1. The resident appointed a solicitor to start a disrepair claim against the landlord for damp and mould and other repair issues of defective windows at the property. The resident’s solicitor sent a letter of claim to the landlord on 31 March 2021. The landlord denied liability in May 2021 and the resident’s claim subsequently ended in June 2022 prior to court action. The defective windows have since been remedied and therefore the resident’s complaint is solely about damp and mould at her home.
  2. The landlord inspected the property on 14 April 2021 as part of the disrepair claim. It reported the following in relation to the resident’s concerns of damp and mould:
    1. Bedroom 1
      1. No significant evidence of serious mould growth except for the inside corner of the built in wardrobe where there were damp and mould patches as a result of a possible leak on the wall.
      2. The left side of the room showed signs of mould that had been cleaned.
      3. The top left corner of the ceiling and wall showed damp patches.
      4. Damp meter tests to the surfaces within the property returned various results from dry to wet. It noted that the cause in the wet area could be as a result of possible water penetration from the eaves or from defective pointing.
    2. Living room
      1. The landlord recorded no evidence of penetrating damp.
      2. The affected wall was an external wall and the damp meter reading varied from dry to wet.
    3. Bathroom
      1. It noted the area to be “generally in good condition except the dried damp patch on the ceiling”.
      2. It said there was no evidence of mould growth in the room and noted an action to redecorate the ceiling.
    4. Kitchen
      1. It noted “generally good condition and no evidence of mould growth or damp”.
    5. The landlord recorded an action to gain access to the flat above to investigate the source of damp. It also said the roof required an inspection to check for a possible leak from the eaves.
    6. The summary of the report noted several defects that were considered to be in breach of section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. It should be noted that this inspection did not solely consider the damp and mould as the surveyor inspected the whole of the property for defects.
  3. The landlord has not provided the evidence of its actions in relation to gaining access to the upper flat to carry out a closer inspection of the defects.
  4. There is a gap in landlord evidence from April 2021 until 3 March 2022 when the landlord’s records note the works contractor had attempted to arrange a scoping appointment at the property and an asbestos survey for 4 April 2022. The contractor reported an access issue and recorded that the resident wanted to speak to her housing officer.
  5. The resident had told the landlord that she required confirmation of work appointments 2 weeks in advance by letter. On 18 March 2022, the landlord recorded the resident had said she had not always received the advanced appointments by letter and on occasions, operatives had attended her home without notifying her of the appointment.
  6. On 4 April 2022, an operative attended the resident’s home but the resident had to attend an emergency appointment and therefore the works appointment did not go ahead. This was rescheduled to 21 April 2022 and a letter was sent to the resident.
  7. It is unclear if the appointment on 21 April 2022 went ahead as the landlord has not provided the evidence and there is no record to show what happened during the forthcoming months until October 2022.
  8. On 3 October 2022, the landlord’s records showed it had spoken to the resident about her complaint. The resident wanted a report prepared of the work it proposed to conduct at the property. The landlord explained the schedule of works was a report. However, the evidence is unclear whether it did provide the resident with the schedule of works that was taken from the inspection of 14 April 2021.
  9. Various landlord and contractor internal communications took place from October 2022 to December 2022 about access to the property and the scope of works. The contractor was keen to complete the works and all parties wanted an update on what was happening. It appears the issues were not moved forward, as in March 2023, the landlord recorded that it was still unsuccessful in being able to gain access to complete the work.
  10. The resident contacted this Service and the Ombudsman asked the landlord to provide the resident with a complaint response by 24 May 2023 and on which date the resident contacted this Service again to say she had still not had a complaint response from the landlord. She said the landlord had been sending her emails when she had asked for communication by letter only.
  11. On 31 May 2023, the landlord’s records showed there continued to be an access issue to the property. The landlord had been communicating with the resident and had noted her health issues of COPD and that she had been in hospital on more than one occasion. Internal landlord communication asked if there was a plan of action in relation to the repairs.
  12. On the same day, the landlord’s internal communications confirmed it had initially dealt with the resident’s complaint as a ‘quick fix’. The landlord also confirmed its action to this Service. The landlord’s ‘quick fix’ process is designed for non-complex issues that it can resolve within 48 hours. The landlord had therefore failed to provide the resident with a stage 1 complaint response.
  13. The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 7 June 2023. It explained the following:

Damp works

  1. Damp was first reported at the end of January 2021 and it arranged for a contractor to attend.
  2. It received notification of legal disrepair proceedings and on 14 April 2021, its surveyor inspected the property. A scope of works was agreed and the landlord denied liability of disrepair and wrote to the resident’s solicitor on 18 May 2021 to say it received notification about the repairs on 27 January 2021 and it had taken steps to access the property to rectify the problem.
  3. The resident had refused access to its contractors.
  4. The solicitor stopped representing the resident and the landlord’s disrepair team had been managing the outstanding repairs which included attempts to gain access to the property to carry out the works that were scoped on 14 April 2021.
  5. The landlord had given its contractor authorisation to proceed with the work and agree access with the resident. There had been some delays due to cyclical work being completed at the property which had now been completed. The landlord said its contractors required access from the resident to complete the work.
  6. The landlord accepted that it should have been more proactive to resolve the access issues to ensure the work was completed.
  7. It said it wanted to arrange a meeting with the resident, the contractor and lead surveyor so that all parties were clear on what works were required and it could move forward to complete the works. It asked for dates the resident would be available.
  8. The landlord apologised for its failure and offered the resident £500 compensation in recognition of the delayed work and stress and inconvenience caused to the resident.

Complaint

  1. The landlord explained that since April 2021, the case had been with its disrepair team who had been managing the works.
  2. A formal complaint was raised on 3 May 2023 about the landlord’s failure to resolve the damp work.
  3. The landlord’s housing officer had tried to resolve the complaint through a ‘quick fix’ but it should have raised the issue as a formal stage 1 complaint.
  4. The landlord apologised for the error and recognised it was a service failure and offered the resident compensation of £100.
  5. The landlord upheld the complaint about the failure to complete damp and mould work within a reasonable timeframe and its failure to respond to the complaint at stage 1 of its complaints procedure. It acknowledged that the issues should not have taken 2 years for work to be completed and it was hopeful that it could move the matter forward by meeting with the resident and then arranging the necessary works.

Summary of events after landlord’s complaint process

  1. In June 2023 and July 2023, the landlord’s records showed it was in contact with the resident about a meeting in an attempt to move forward with the work. It appears there was some reluctance from the resident and she did not want the landlord to arrange work as she had referred her complaint to this Service.
  2. The resident continued to communicate with this Service. She explained that she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response because the landlord had said that access issues had been the cause of the delayed work. The resident had been clear that she required prior notice of when contractors were due to attend her home and had asked for  appointments in writing, but contractors continued to call her. The resident said she had lost numerous belongings, decoration and furniture damaged due to mould.
  3. The landlord arranged a meeting on 10 October 2023 at the resident’s home but the landlord noted the resident’s daughter was in hospital and she had requested the meeting should take place at the landlord’s office.
  4.  The landlord’s records showed it attempted to arrange a meeting with the resident on 18 October 2023 but this was unsuccessful and the landlord agreed to call the resident the following week.
  5. The meeting went ahead on 1 November 2023 and the landlord recorded notes from this meeting. Several issues with the property were raised in relation to cracks to the brickwork pointing, water ingress above the bay window, a flat roof balcony that pooled water and the guttering. The landlord noted an action to gain access to the upper flat. A note was recorded that the internal walls were damp and had ‘bubbled’.
  6. The landlord inspected the property on 14 November 2023 and noted the following observations:
    1. External side elevation – required repointing.
    2. Overflow from roof gutter – it noted an action to erect scaffold to the side elevation to access the roof gutter.
    3. Rear elevation – brickwork around the windows had been raked out and not filled. It noted an action to apply external graded mastic to the gaps on the left-hand corner of the window reveal.
    4. Living room – it reported the newly installed windows were damaged due to damp. It noted an action to repoint around the windows as “water was pouring in through the inside of the property”.
    5. Bay window – The front bay window has a balcony above it. There had been water ingress to the property and the balcony required attention. It noted an action to gain access to the upper flat to carry out a closer inspection.
    6. Damp to external rear wall – It noted damp to the ceiling/wall junction to the side elevation wall in front of the fitted wardrobe.
  7. On 10 November 2023, the landlord’s records showed it sent a letter to the resident with a list of repairs it had discussed at its joint meeting on 1 November 2023.
  8. The landlord has provided this Service with recent information that shows it was arranging to erect scaffolding at the property to investigate the issue with the gutter. It has also confirmed that no work has been completed internally yet, some external work has been completed, and it has still to return to complete the full work orders.

Assessment and findings

  1. The resident mentions she has been hospitalised on more than one occasion due to her medical condition of COPD. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments regarding her health but this Service is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impact on health and wellbeing. Matters of personal injury or damage to health, their investigation and compensation, are not part of the complaints process, and are more appropriately addressed by way of the courts or the landlord’s liability insurer as a personal injury claim.
  2. The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles are to:
    1. Be fair;
    2. Put things right; and
    3. Learn from outcomes.

These principles will be applied throughout the assessment and findings.

The landlord’s handling of damp and mould

  1. The resident first reported concerns about property defects in January 2021 and the landlord said it arranged for its contractor to attend. However, the landlord has not provided the evidence to show when this was or what action it took on site and whether it gained access to the property. The resident then appointed a solicitor to start a disrepair claim against the landlord in March 2021.
  2. The landlord inspected the property mid-April 2021 and reported a number of defects with the property. Repairs relating to damp and mould were identified and it said further investigations were required and it needed to arrange to check the roof and gain access to the upper flat to complete its diagnosis. The summary report noted several defects that were considered to be a breach of section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. However, as the property inspection did not solely concentrate of damp and mould, some of these defects related to other issues outside the scope of this investigation.
  3. The landlord has failed to provide the evidence that it followed up on its actions from the inspection. It is unclear what happened, if anything, between April 2021 to February 2022 as the landlord has not provided the records. While the defects were being dealt with as part of a legal disrepair claim, the Ombudsman expects landlords to keep robust records of its repair and maintenance actions that include being able to evidence that it followed up on actions from its inspection. Therefore, the landlord’s lack of records is inappropriate. The landlord had already identified that several defects were considered to be a breach of its repair obligations under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 and the landlord should have been able to demonstrate that it acted promptly to resolve the defects.
  4. The resident had told the landlord she required confirmation of appointments for the proposed work by letter 2 weeks in advance. It appears this did not always happen and in early April 2022, the contractor had arranged to attend the property to scope out the proposed work and conduct an asbestos survey. This was not completed due to an access issue.
  5. The landlord’s records showed it was liaising with the contractor about the proposed work up until March 2023 but nothing had been resolved about access to the resident’s home. It was within the landlord’s remit to plan and coordinate work of this nature and it was inappropriate that it did not do so effectively and in accordance with the resident’s access and communication requirements. If the landlord had respected the resident’s wishes it may have gone some way to restore a more positive resident and landlord relationship that ultimately led to completion of work at a much earlier date.
  6. The resident raised a complaint with the landlord via this Service in May 2023. The landlord noted the resident’s health issues of COPD and she had been in hospital on more than one occasion. The landlord explained to the resident in its stage 2 complaint response in June 2023 that she had refused access to its contractors to complete the work. The landlord accepted it should have been more proactive in resolving the access issues taking into account the resident’s access and communication requirements.
  7. The landlord proposed a meeting with all parties to move forward, it apologised for its failure and offered the resident £500 compensation in recognition of the delayed work and the stress and inconvenience caused to the resident. While the landlord recognised its failures and was attempting to put things right for the resident, given the damp and mould issue had been ongoing for over 2 years in conjunction with the potential hazards of damp and mould, this amount of compensation falls short of what the Ombudsman would expect for such a serious failure. The amount of £1000 is deemed suitable by the Ombudsman as compensation  in recognition that there had been significant impact caused to the resident through distress, inconvenience and her time and trouble over a long period of time. This amount of compensation is aligned to the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.
  8. In summary, the landlord delayed in carrying out necessary work to the property to eliminate damp and mould over a prolonged period of over 2 years. While there were access issues to the property, it was clear the landlord did not always follow the resident’s access and communication requirements and this failure contributed to the delay. Further, the landlord’s poor record keeping did not provide assurance to the Ombudsman that it had done enough to manage the situation or carry out necessary actions to gain access to the upper flat and check the roof. While the landlord did reflect and acknowledge its failures and offered the resident £500 compensation, given the impact caused to the resident and the cumulative failures identified within this report, the landlord should pay the resident £1000 to fully reflect the failures and impact caused to the resident.

Complaint handling

  1. The resident had become increasingly frustrated that there was no progress on the proposed work and she contacted this Service in May 2023. This Service requested that the landlord raise a formal complaint. The landlord explained to this Service that it had dealt with the resident’s initial complaint as a ‘quick fix’ rather than a stage 1 complaint. While the landlord can make this decision on some complaints, its complaints policy gives guidance on the types of complaints the ‘quick fix’ process is suitable for. As the name implies, these are for quick actions within 48 hours for such matters as booking a new appointment or request or an explanation. As this matter was of a more serious nature that involved incomplete repairs to remedy the damp and mould, it was inappropriate for the landlord to deal with the resident’s complaint as a ‘quick fix’ and it should have registered and responded to the resident as part of stage 1 of its complaints process.
  2. After intervention by this Service, the landlord progressed the resident’s complaint and sent the resident a response under stage 2 of its complaints process in early June 2023. The landlord recognised its complaint handling failure, apologised and offered the resident compensation of £100. This was an appropriate response by the landlord to put things right for the failings in its complaint handling and to compensate the resident in recognition of the inconvenience, time and trouble caused by its actions.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration with the landlord’s handling of damp and mould at the property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Scheme there was reasonable redress with the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

  1. The landlord delayed in completing work to remedy damp and mould at the property over a prolonged period. The landlord failed to keep robust records of its repair and maintenance actions and it could not demonstrate it had followed up on investigatory actions. The landlord failed to follow the resident’s access and communication request in arranging the necessary work and this contributed to delays in achieving access to the property.
  2. The landlord recognised its complaint handling failure in not progressing the resident’s complaint to stage 1 of its procedure, it apologised and put things right for the resident through its compensation offer.

Orders and recommendations

  1. Within 4 weeks of this report, the landlord should write to the resident and apologise for the failures identified within this report. The landlord should give the resident advice on whether it can assist with the loss of her belongings including how she can make a claim through its insurance policy.
  2. Within 4 weeks of this report, the landlord is ordered to pay compensation of £1100 (including the £600 it had already offered the resident if it has not already done so) as follows:
    1. £1000 the landlord’s handling of damp and mould.
    2. £100 complaint handling.
  3. Within 4 weeks of this report, the landlord should provide the resident and this Service with its action plan including schedules of works and timescales for the completion of the outstanding work. The landlord should appoint an appropriate officer to oversee the work including the arrangement of the necessary access to the resident’s home which aligns with her access and communication requirements.
  4. Within 8 weeks of this report, the landlord is to review the findings within this report and provide its learning from the case on what actions it intends to take to improve the service.
  5. Within 8 weeks of this report, the landlord is to review its record keeping taking into consideration the Ombudsman’s Knowledge and Information Spotlight report (May 2023) and provide this Service with its action plan on how it will improve its record keeping within the repair and maintenance service.
  6. The landlord should reply to this Service with evidence of compliance with these orders within the timescales set out above.