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

Notting Hill Genesis (201811046)

Back to Top

 

 

 

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201811046

Notting Hill Genesis

29 January 2021


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 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 regarding the landlord’s handling of:
    1. Works required to the windows in the property
    2. Repairs to a back door and the surrounding flooring
    3. Renewal of the kitchen units
    4. The resident’s formal complaint on the issues.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the property, a two-bedroom ground floor flat, which is owned by the landlord.
  2. In a letter to the landlord, which it received on 27 February 2019, the resident stated that the kitchen units of the property were damaged; the windows had big gaps; the heating was faulty; there was water ingress through the walls; and the wooden frame of the back door was damaged. The landlord’s surveyors had visited, taken photographs, but had not contacted her further. She wanted the property to be professionally inspected, as this was long overdue, and for the repairs to be undertaken. 
  3. The resident wrote to the landlord again on 11 March 2019 and stated that she had not received any communication from its repairs department regarding the issues with the property. She wanted information on how to seek compensation for the impact the issues were having on her.
  4. The landlord visited the property to undertake an inspection on 5 April 2019, however the resident would not grant access on the day, stating that she was unwell. It rescheduled the visit for 17 May 2019 as she requested a new date. The landlord visited the property on 22 May 2019 and inspected the windows, after which it advised the resident that they did not require replacement. It recorded that the resident asked it to leave as she was under the impression that it did not have time to complete the inspection.
  5. The landlord wrote to the residence on 11 July 2019 requesting to have a discussion with her with respect to the repairs as it has tried to contact her without success. It met with her on 12 July 2019 and she agreed for an inspection to be undertaken with its contractors on 17 July 2019. It wrote to her on 19 July 2019 to advise about the schedule of works which it had identified during the visit. This included a like for like renewal of the kitchen units, worktops and sink and overhaul of the windows. It requested that she confirms her availability for the works to be undertaken.
  6. Following a pre-inspection visit to the property, of 30 August 2019, the landlord wrote to the resident on 4 September 2019. It provided her with the scope of works which was based on its findings and mainly indicated that the windows required overhaul and the rear bedroom door would be adjusted. It sought her confirmation that the contractors could attend on 20 September 2019 to complete the repairs. In a letter to the resident of 13 September 2019 the landlord provided a further schedule of works which included the renewal of the kitchen units and worktops on a like for like basis. It also referred to a visit to the property of 10 September 2019 and requested works visits beginning from 30 September 2019.
  7. The landlord visited the property on 23 September 2019 to finalise arrangements for the works, but the resident stated that she was not happy with the proposed repairs to the windows. The contractors were undertaking works in the property on 1 and 2 October 2019 but had to leave when the resident became unwell, following a dispute with them on the works. This incident has been narrated more detail in the stage one decision below.
  8. The contractors were at the property on 18 October 2019 to undertake works, but the resident asked them to leave as she stated that dust from the wood cutting for the units had affected her washing machine and cooker. As the works were uncompleted, the landlord wrote to this Service to state that it was uncertain how this could be undertaken if she would not grant access. The resident had asked it to clean the appliances, but it was its intention to undertake cleaning after the works. 
  9.       In its stage one decision of 25 October 2019 the landlord stated that it had made several attempts to complete the installation of the new kitchen and maintenance of the windows of the property. The resident had prevented this because of her disagreement with the new kitchen units and the windows being repaired rather than renewed. It had explained the actions it would have to undertake if she would not allow it to complete the works.
  10.       The landlord reiterated the scope of works for the kitchen and clarified that the units, worktops and sink would be renewed on a like for like basis. It would offer her a choice of colours and hoped to match the wood colour of the previous units as closely as possible. It had inspected the property on 15 July 2019 and returned to her on 22 July 2019 to clarify the works and for her to confirm the dates. Having received no response, it called her four times in July and August 2019, but she did not respond. It, therefore, hand-delivered a letter to the property on 31 July 2019 and spoke to her support worker on 6 August 2019.
  11.       Through the support worker the pre-inspection visit was confirmed for 15 August 2019, and the resident agreed that works could begin on 9 September. However, the resident called the landlord on the day to request a postponement to 16 September 2019, but this was not suitable for the contractors and the alternative date of 30 September 2019 was agreed. This was again shifted by the resident to 1 October 2019 due to a hospital appointment. The kitchen works were completed on the day but there were difficulties as she disagreed with the contractors on the dimensions of the units, which were smaller than the previous ones.
  12.       The resident had become unwell whilst the issue was being disputed with the landlord and contractors on 2 October 2019 and emergency services had to attend to her. A follow up appointment was, therefore, agreed for 18 October 2019. The landlord requested that she provides two consecutive days for the works to be completed and stated that failure to grant access for this would be a breach of her tenancy agreement and it could take legal action.
  13.       With respect to the windows the landlord stated that it had inspected the property and the scope of works provided to the resident on her request for the required repairs. Although it had been arranged for the contractor to undertake a pre inspection visit on 15 August 2019, the contractor had requested a postponement to 30 August 2019 as the date was no longer convenient. The landlord had received the contractor’s report on 3 September 2019 and a letter had been sent to the resident proposing 20 September 2019 for the repairs.
  14.       The resident had instead informed the landlord that she wished for the windows to be replaced and not overhauled. The landlord explained that the windows would not be replaced until 2023 when this was due, but it was its intention to undertake repairs in the interim. It had decided to escalate this aspect of her complaint as no agreement had been reached on the way forward.
  15.       The landlord wrote to the resident on 6 December 2019 and again on 8 January 2020. It confirmed a meeting which had been arranged to take place in the property on 13 January 2020.  In both letters, it also provided clarification on its position regarding her requests on various aspects of the works which it has confirmed in its final decision. There were several attempts by the landlord to arrange the appointment for works with her and the contractor was booked for the three days in December 2019, but she informed the landlord on 16 December that she was not going to be available until January 2020.
  16.       In its final decision of 16 March 2020, the landlord stated that it did not want to provide a concluding response but had been advised by this Service to do so. It stated that following the resident raising concerns about her kitchen and windows, it had attempted to book appointments for inspections by its repairs team, but the resident had declined this as she wanted a surveyor to visit instead.
  17.       The landlord narrated events occurring since the resident reported the issue in February 2019 and reiterated the details which had been narrated in its stage one decision. It explained that it had informed the resident about its findings with respect to the size and number of the kitchen units. The previous units in the property exceeded the statutory requirement for property of its size. This was because its lettable standards were larger than the legal requirement. It had agreed to provide her with units on a like for like basis although this would result in larger units than would be found in three-bedroom properties.
  18.       The landlord stated that the worktop was slightly smaller than the original one, but it was the size of a standard one and could not be changed. The sink mixer tap was also a standard one and would not be changed. It clarified that the original base units had ‘add on’ end panels, and these were not integral to the unit. It also stated that it had found no evidence of damage to the drawers and the joints required a final adjustment and cleaning. It had given the resident a revised scope of works and tried to arrange an appointment with her for completion of the works, but no agreement had been reached on the works to be undertaken. It reiterated the works required to the windows and back door frame.
  19.       The landlord had been contacted by the local CAB on the resident’s behalf, in November 2019, with respect to her request for a review of its decision. She had requested for it to change the surveyor who had been dealing with the issue as she stated that he had not been helpful. It informed her about having changed the surveyor on 6 December 2019, although it had also cautioned that this may not change its findings on the issue. Another inspection was booked with the new surveyor for 13 January 2020.
  20.       During the visit the surveyor advised that the chipped areas of the kitchen drawers were easily rectified during the finishing. The landlord was considering her request to move the worktop forward to cover the gap left by the new smaller one or may install a breakfast bar which is wider than a worktop. There were samples of the worktop/breakfast bar available to show her, but a change in staffing meant that there had been delays to arranging further appointments. It offered her £75 as a goodwill gesture in recognition of the delays. 
  21.       The new surveyor had confirmed that the door and windows did not require replacement. The landlord maintained that the windows would be replaced as part of the 2022/23 financial year and advised the resident to contact the Environmental Health Team (EHT) if she remained concerned about the condition of the windows. It also addressed other issues raised by the resident which had not formed part of the original repairs request or formal complaint. Noting its delays in providing the review decision to the resident the landlord offered her a further £75 in compensation, bringing its total offer to £150. 
  22.       Having agreed to install the larger kitchen as a goodwill gesture, the landlord advised the resident on 6 December 2019 that the works could be completed before Christmas if she was timely in suggesting 3 consecutive work dates. In conclusion, it further advised that the contractor had suggested 18, 19 and 20 December 2019 for the works but the resident stated that she was not available.
  23.       The resident wrote to the landlord on 21 April 2020 stating that the contractors had left the property in a dangerous state. She included photographs of the unfinished kitchen works and her washing machine. She wrote to the landlord again on 18 June 2020 asking that it clarifies why the kitchen works was on hold. She also asked for clarification on the situation with the works to the windows and back door. The landlord wrote to the resident on 2 July 2020 providing her with details of the works to be undertaken to the kitchen. These included replacing the wall units with 900mm units; resolving the bridging unit issue; fitting doors to the wall units; completing installation of the units; installing the sink; decorating and cleaning the kitchen; and making good the tiles on the chimney breast. 
  24.       In September 2020 the landlord chased its contractor for a date for the works. The contractor advised the landlord on 10 September 2020 that it could commence works on 17 September 2020. The landlord informed the resident about this as it sought her confirmation of the date. She stated that she would not confirm the date until she received in writing details of the works to be undertaken as well as a response to her letter to the landlord.
  25.       The resident wrote to the landlord on 21 September 2020 to request for clarifications on the works. She wanted it to confirm that the kitchen would be painted and the piping over the top of the units covered. She also wanted clarification on the works to the back door and the flooring as well as the windows. she stated that she wanted the works assessed by an expert. 
  26.       In its response of 24 September 2020 the landlord referred the resident to its letters to her of 17 August and 12 September 2020 in which it had advised about the works to be undertaken, which was as previously agreed when she visited the property on 20 July 2020. Nonetheless, it clarified that it would install wider worktops; install larger wall and floor cupboards to already agreed specifications; fit a tap outside; and repair the damaged tile in the kitchen. It advised her about social distancing rules to be observed whilst the contractors worked. It stated that it would assess the door and window frames and replace the frame prior to any works using a specialist contractor. 
  27.       In a letter to the landlord of 10 October 2020, the resident wanted to know when the kitchen works would be completed. She also sought clarity on the replacement of the back door and window frame as she stated that it was letting in water. She was requesting dates for the works. In another letter of 14 October 2020, she requested clarifications on the works to be undertaken to the property. She wanted to know whether the kitchen would be painted; if it will be cleaned; and who was responsible for repairing the floor around the door frame. She also wanted update on works to the windows.
  28.       In its response of 16 October 2020, the landlord attached its previous letter to the resident and stated that it had attempted to speak to her severally by telephone. It stated that the works had been proposed to take place on 16 November 2020 and wanted her to confirm if this was convenient. It clarified that the door and window frame was ready to be installed and requested a convenient date from her. It has also maintained in later communications with her that the door frame would be installed prior to the floor being repaired.

Assessment and findings

  1.       Documents provided by the landlord indicate that the resident began to report issues with the windows in September 2018 but would not grant access for repairs. Its records indicate that it carried out an inspection in January 2019, but no ‘major issues’ were detected. It also considered in internal communications whether the windows and kitchen units were due for a renewal and arranged to revisit on 4 or 5 April 2019 to re-inspect the property.
  2.       The resident made a formal complaint before the landlord’s pre-arranged visit. It is a landlord’s responsibility to maintain adequate records with respect to repairs raised by its residents. It stated in its final decision of 16 March 2020 that the resident declined its attempts to inspect the property after her formal complaint of February 2019, as she wanted a surveyor to visit instead. Although its assertions are consistent with the resident’s letters in succeeding months, the landlord has not provided any evidence of having communicated with the resident on receiving her letter of complaint. This would have been necessary for it to explain how it intended to respond to the complaint or to clarify that it would be inspecting the property as pre-arranged.
  3.       The resident contacted this Service in May and June 2019 to state that the landlord was not responding to her complaints or dealing with the repairs. With respect to the repairs varies a disparity between the account of events by the parties. The operatives who visited the property in May 2019 made contemporaneous notes on their communications with the resident during the visit. It indicates that she did not wish for the inspection to continue and asked them to leave. Thus, the delays in continuing to deal with the repairs at this stage was not due to any failure by the landlord to provide an appropriate service.
  4.       This Service has been provided with a copy of the purchase order raised by the landlord regarding the works to the property. It shows that the contractor was mandated by the landlord to renew the kitchen with like for like units, as chosen by the resident, and redecorate the area. This confirms that it was always the landlord’s intention today provide units similar to what the residents had previously. Although it had no legal obligation to provide her with the size of units which she wanted, it was committed to doing so prior to commencement of the works. When she objected to the size of the units the landlord was prompt in agreeing to resolve the issue by providing like for like units, to the extent that this was possible in the circumstances.
  5.       The landlord made adequate efforts from July 2019 to undertake the works to the property. However, there were several disagreements between the parties regarding the scope of the works. The landlord attempted, on several occasions to clarify its position to the resident both in writing and verbally. It provided an alternative surveyor at the resident’s request to ensure that it was making an objective assessment. There was no obligation for it to have done so as it is entitled to rely on the decisions of its qualified operatives. In making the change the landlord demonstrated its willingness to resolve the issues objectively.
  6.       The landlord advised the resident that it had found that the windows did not require replacement and were not due for cyclical renewal until a couple of years later. As stated above it is reasonable for landlords to rely on the assessment its expert personnel. There is no basis for this Service to conclude that the landlord’s assessment of the condition of the windows is inaccurate. Furthermore, this Service is unable to require a landlord to embark on cyclical works sooner than stated in its programme. It is for the landlord to decide how to proceed with its findings on the repairs required to the windows in accordance with its policy and the resident’s tenancy agreement.
  7.       The evidence indicates that the landlord agreed that the units were smaller than the previous ones in the kitchen. The operatives initially requested that the resident allows them to complete the works, but they left the property at her insistence. The landlord agreed to replace the new units with larger ones which considerably exceeded legal requirements. As the standard units were not an exact fit with the replaced units it was reasonable that the landlord advised that it would make practical adjustments. It was also proactive in sourcing a breakfast bar as a replacement for the worked up us this was larger than the standard once used by its contractor. As it was not possible for it to provide units and worktops to her specifications, this Service finds that the landlord has made sufficient effort to provide a like for like replacement of the units as it agreed to do.
  8.       With respect to her assertions that dust from wood cutting by the operatives had affected her appliances this Service finds that the landlord provided a reasonable response. This Service is unable to conclude that the dust from the works was the cause of any malfunctioning of the appliances. The landlord offered to undertake a professional clean after the works has been concluded.
  9.       If the resident remains dissatisfied with its offer, she may wish to make an insurance claim with respect to the appliances. The landlord’s Compensation Policy provides in clause 6 that tenants ‘are advised to take out contents insurance to cover against accidental damage.’ If her personal items are not insured; she may wish to make a claim to the landlord’s insurer. As this Service does not consider insurance matters, the resident may wish to seek legal advice regarding this aspect of her complaint. Our position here is in accordance with paragraph 39(i) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme which provides that: ‘The Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable, or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, a designated person, other tribunal or procedure’.
  10.       In a letter to the landlord of 27 October 2020 the resident requested for an update on the completion of the kitchen works and stated that she wanted a date on which both the flooring and the back door frame works would be undertaken at the same time. In its response of 3 November 2020, the landlord referred to its letter to the residents of 22 October 2020. It clarified that the back-door frame would not be replaced prior to the floor repairs. As already stated with respect to the window repairs, the landlord is expected to handle repairs in accordance with the findings of its operatives. It has provided the resident with reasonable explanations in support of its decision to undertake works to the door frame prior to the flooring repairs. It is, again, within its discretion to decide how to proceed with completing these repairs in light of the resident’s objections.
  11.       The landlord informed this Service on 4 November 2020 that the resident had finally agreed, through her support worker, to grant access for the completion of the kitchen installation. It has since informed this Service that the kitchen installation was completed on 17 November 2020, but the resident maintains that the windows have to be replaced rather than overhauled. It is not clear to this Service whether the external door has now been replaced and the flooring repaired.
  12.       In advising the resident to confirm dates in December 2019 for the works the landlord clarified that due to the Christmas holidays it would be necessary for her to do so urgently as any delays in her decision would also mean that the works would not be undertaken until the new year. No works were undertaken at that time because, when she responded to the landlord on 16 December 2019, she stated that she was unwell and could not have the works undertaken at that time. 
  13.       This Service notes that the final decision was issued by the landlord in March 2020 which was also the period when the first national lockdown occurred. The landlord, like most organisations, struggled with undertaking their normal business due to the unprecedented situation. Thus, it is understandable that previously agreed repairs were not ongoing as it was not clear how such matters could be dealt with under the new government restrictions. The delays till the later part of the year were not unreasonable in the circumstances.
  14.       The landlord has not provided sufficient evidence of events leading up to the resident’s complaints of February 2019 and from that point until its visits to the property of April 2019. It considered the delays in its communications on the works between January and March 2020, identified that this was due to staffing changes and offered compensation to the resident. The documents provided to this Service show that the major delays to the works were due to the resident’s disagreements with the landlord’s assessment of required works and consequent proposed action to resolve issues. Thus, this report concludes that the amount offered by the landlord was adequate redress for its communication shortcomings in the identified periods. 
  15.       This Service chased the landlord for a decision on the formal complaint made to it by the resident several times from April till August 2019. The landlord explained in a couple of responses to this Service that it was dealing with the issue, however, it has provided no evidence any clarifications being made to the resident regarding the status of the formal complaint and any reasons for the delay. It did not provide a complaint decision until October 2019 five months after it was chased by this service.
  16.       The landlord’s Complaints Policy provides in clause 5 that it would respond two formal complaints within 10 working days. It further states that ‘the written response will detail any follow up actions that are required to resolve the complaint and a timescale given for when these are expected to be complete.’ Thus, although the landlord was still making efforts to complete works on the property mainly by seeking a mutually acceptable resolution with the resident, it would have been reasonable for it to make a decision on the complaint within time. As seen above, its policy enables it to utilise the complaints response to clarify the situation, provide time skills for any actions and generally explain how it intends to deal with it.
  17.       In its stage two decision the landlord acknowledged that there had been delays to the review being undertaken and offered the resident an amount in compensation, which this service considers as adequate redress for that stage of the complaint. It would have been reasonable for it to have applied the same consideration to its response to the stage one process and offered compensation in like manner.
  18.       Overall, the landlord failed to act in accordance with its complaints procedure as it delayed in providing a decision despite being chased frequently by this Service at stage one of its process. The difficulty in agreeing on how to progress with the works, with the resident, should not have resulted in the landlord having to be chased for the complaints decision and delaying in providing it. This Service finds that the landlord missed the opportunity to offer redress regarding the delays in dealing with the complaint at stage one and compensation is therefore warranted for its shortcomings in this aspect of the complaint.

Determination (decision)

  1.       In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of:
    1. Works required to the windows in the property
    2. Repairs to a back door and the surrounding flooring
    3. Renewal of the kitchen units.
  2.       In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of:
    1. The resident’s formal complaint on the issues particularly as it did not offer compensation for its delays to provide a decision at stage one.

Reasons

  1.       The landlord’s expert operatives found that the windows did not require replacement and the cyclical renewal was not yet due. It appropriately offered to complete identified repairs, but the resident did not grant access.
  2.       The landlord’s expert operatives found that the door frame should be repaired before the flooring, to prevent further deterioration of the flooring. It is a reasonable position, and this was consistently clarified to the resident.
  3.       The landlord offered reasonable measures to rectify the issue of the installation of smaller kitchen units than the resident had previously. There were delays mainly due to disputes between the parties on a mutually acceptable resolution.
  4.       The landlord failed to acknowledge the shortcomings in its handling of the formal complaint at stage one and, consequently, to offer compensation in redress.

Orders

  1.       I make the following orders to be complied with by the landlord within 4 weeks of this report:
    1. The landlord should pay the additional amount of £75 in compensation to the resident for its handling of the complaint at stage one of its process.

Recommendations

  1.       The landlord should consider reviewing the implementation of its complaints policy and procedures and ensure that its staff members tasked with the handling of complaints are aware of the necessity of communicating the status of complaints, including any reasons for delays, to residents.