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

Notting Hill Genesis (NHG) (202220693)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202220693

Notting Hill Genesis (NHG)

19 July 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:
    1. Repairs to windows in the property.
    2. Repairs to a skylight and leaking roof.
    3. The associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant. The property is a 1 bedroom flat on the top floor of a low rise block. He has lived at the address since August 2003.
  2. The resident was unable to recall when he first reported issues with a leaking skylight to the landlord. He said that the issues were ongoing for more than 5 years. The landlord’s records show that there were issues with the condition of the wooden window frames in the property since 2019. Its repair history shows orders raised to address a leak from the skylight on 21 December 2020.
  3. The landlord cleared the gutter, downpipe, and replaced some slates to resolve the water leak into the property in February 2021. It planned to return in October 2021 to replace the skylight and repair the flat roof.
  4. On 21 December 2021 the landlord’s contractor surveyed the roof. It identified repairs required to rectify water penetration into the kitchen, corridor, and window frames. There were also external repairs required to the roof and brickwork.
  5. The landlord inspected the windows on 11 February 2022 and found them to be beyond economical repair. It noted that the issues were ongoing since November 2019.
  6. On 15 February 2022 the resident reported water coming through the kitchen ceiling. He asked for an update on 31 March 2022. The landlord passed the work to its contractor and informed the resident.
  7. The landlord inspected the windows on 6 April 2022. It said that it would add the windows to its planned maintenance programme for 2022/23.
  8. The resident called the landlord to chase updates on the skylight and roof repairs most months between April and December 2022. The landlord’s records show that it left voice mails for the resident in response to some of the calls. Many were unanswered. Where it replied, it said that works had been passed to contractors.
  9. In January 2023, the resident complained to the landlord. Its records are unclear of the date of the complaint. The evidence available to the Ombudsman show an undated copy of the complaint made online. The landlord’s records show that it called to discuss the complaint on 11 January 2023. The resident said:
    1. He was unhappy the landlord’s response to reports of a leaking roof and skylight. He had raised these issues “a few years ago” and they remained unresolved.
    2. He wanted the landlord to replace the skylight, repair the roof, and replace the windows.
  10. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 18 January 2023. It apologised for the delay to issue its response. It apologised for the delay to repair the skylight and said:
    1. It had passed the work to its contractor on 5 January 2023.
    2. It had no date for the windows to be replaced. It would update the resident separately.
    3. It offered compensation of £50 for stress and inconvenience.
  11. The resident remained unhappy with the landlord’s response. He asked for his complaint to be escalated on 24 January 2023. He did not receive a response. He contacted the Ombudsman and we wrote to the landlord asking that it escalate his complaint on 14 February 2023. We said that the complaint was about the landlord’s handling of:
    1. Reports of leaks into the kitchen and through the skylight.
    2. Reports of rotting windows.
    3. Reports that the property was cold.
  12. The landlord’s contractor inspected the roof on 28 February 2023. It found that the water tank was leaking and needed to be removed. The skylight hatch was also leaking and required repairs.
  13. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 5 April 2023. It apologised for the delay to issue its response. It said:
    1. Its surveyor visited the property on 6 April 2022 to inspect the windows after issues with contractors failing to fix the windows. It decided to bring forward the replacement to 2022/23. This did not happen and it apologised for the delay. It determined that the windows needed renewing promptly.
    2. It expected to have the new programme of works within 3 weeks of the stage 2 response. It offered £250 for stress and inconvenience caused.
    3. It raised the issue with the skylight repair to its the contractor. It considered that there had been too many delays to conduct the repairs and offered £100 compensation for service failure, plus an additional £250 for the stress caused. It offered a direct point of contact until the works are resolved.
    4. It determined that its communication had been poor. The resident had chased on numerous occasions without response. It apologised for the lack of response and poor communication. It offered £250 for service failure and £250 for stress and inconvenience caused.
    5. It offered £100 for the delay to issue the stage 2 response and £100 for the delay to issue stage 1.
    6. It said there was an ongoing restructure that caused delays. It apologised for the delays.
    7. It apologised for the stress and inconvenience caused and the poor communication. Offered to work closely with the resident to ensure that the service provided improved and the issues were resolved.
    8. In total it offered £1,300 compensation for the failure to fix the windows, keep him updated and the poor communication.
  14. The landlord emailed the resident on 29 September 2023. It said that it planned to repair the roof and skylight. It did not provide any dates for the works. The resident responded to say he was concerned about the damage done to his property because of the leaks. His flooring in the hallway and staircase was “destroyed”. The property was damp and he was concerned about the additional costs incurred heating the property. He asked if the landlord would consider additional compensation.
  15. The resident asked the landlord for some clarity regarding the repairs planned in an email on 2 October 2023. The landlord replied the following day to say that it planned to inspect the property and scope out repairs. Its contractor would conduct all repairs. It would not overhaul the roof or replace the windows. It added the building to its cyclical maintenance programme for 2024/25, where it would replace windows and consider replacing the roof.
  16. The landlord’s records show that it conducted repairs to the roof on 6 November 2023. It found that there was no evidence of further water ingress. It conducted a further inspection on 26 January 2024. It said:
    1. The flat roof was leaking into the kitchen ceiling.
    2. Its inspection of the roof revealed several concerns, including the placement of a cover where the old water tank was situated. The issues were repaired during the visit.
  17. Works to repair the skylight and other roofing issues were marked complete on 1 February 2024.
  18. The resident instructed a solicitor to submit a disrepair application on 19 February 2024. The solicitor wrote to the landlord and it agreed to survey the property.
  19. On 14 April 2024 the resident said that rain was still coming into the hallway and staircase, causing damage to the floor coverings. The kitchen ceiling looked like it was about to fall through. The kitchen and bathroom were in a poor state of repair and her asked for refurbishment. Part of the flat roof had come off and fallen onto the street below.
  20. The property was surveyed on 18 April 2024. The surveyor made the following recommendations to the landlord:
    1. Replace all existing timber framed sash windows (bedroom, bathroom, living room, kitchen & lounge) with new double glazed units.
    2. Erect scaffold to access the roof and identify the source of water ingress to bedroom, bathroom, and remedy.
    3. Hack of and replace defective plaster in the bedroom.
    4. Redecorate the kitchen where there was evidence of a previous leak.
    5. Replace the extractor fan in the kitchen.
  21. During a call to the resident by the Ombudsman in July 2024, he said that he had no update from the landlord following the survey in April 2024. He was told that the windows were scheduled for replacement in October or November 2024.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. The resident said that he has been reporting problems with the roof and windows since around 2019. For this investigation, the Ombudsman has considered the landlord’s handling of these reports in line with its response to repairs from December 2020 onwards. This is based on the evidence available to the Service for investigation and the period for which the landlord has considered in its complaint handling.
  2. While this Service is an alternative to the courts, it is unable to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action have had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health. Nor can it calculate or award damages. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to consider the personal injury aspects of the resident’s complaint. These matters are likely better suited to consideration by a court or via a personal injury claim.

Policy and procedures

  1. The landlord’s responsive repairs policy sets out its response times dependent on the severity of the issue. Most works are managed through its routine repairs and will be responded to within 20 working days.
  2. The landlord operated a 2-stage complaint procedure. It will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days, issue a response at stage 1 in 10 working days and stage 2 within 20 working days.
  3. The landlord published its self–assessment for damp and mould in February 2023. It said that it will provide clear and concise guidance to help identify what may be causing a problem and what steps will be taken to rectify these. It will visit every resident who raises concerns to inspect and understand the issue within 10 days of reporting. It will proactively follow up to ensure works have been completed.

Repairs to windows in the property

  1. Sections 11 and 9A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 require the landlord to keep the structure and exterior of the resident’s property in repair. It must ensure that the property is fit for human habitation throughout his tenancy. The landlord must look at the condition of its properties using a risk assessment approach called the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). HHSRS does not set out any minimum standards, but it is concerned with avoiding, or minimising potential hazards.
  2. Excess cold is a potential category 1 hazard within the scope of HHSRS. Landlords should be aware of their obligations under HHSRS. They are expected to conduct additional monitoring of a property where potential hazards are identified. There was an increased risk of harm to the resident, as the windows in the main living areas were in a poor condition and considered beyond repair.
  3. The resident told the landlord that the issues with his windows had been ongoing since 2019. The landlord’s records show the first request to inspect the windows in the landlord’s records was on 11 February 2022. There was then a delay of around 2 months to survey the windows on 6 April 2022. The landlord should have inspected the windows within 20 working days, in line with its policy. The records are unclear what caused this delay.
  4. When the landlord surveyed the windows on 6 April 2022 it considered the windows to be beyond repair. The windows affected were in the main living areas of the property and would have increased the resident’s risk of exposure to excess cold. Landlords have limited budgets and it is reasonable to include major refurbishment works under planned and cyclical maintenance programmes. Its decision to add the windows to its planned maintenance programme for 2022/23 was appropriate. However, the property must be fit for habitation. It should have reduced the risks to the resident. There are no records to show that any remedial works were conducted. These failures contributed to the resident’s distress and inconvenience.
  5. The landlord did not communicate its decisions effectively to the resident. It should have set out a clear timeframe to replace the windows or conduct remedial works. Its failure to do so caused the resident additional time and trouble.
  6. The resident chased the landlord for updates between 11 April 2022 and 26 July 2022 without response. The landlord told the resident on 28 July 2022 that it passed the works to its contractor. The landlord’s later records show that it failed to assign this property to its contractor for the 2022/23 planned maintenance programme. It failed to have oversight of this issue or conduct repairs within a reasonable period. These failures caused the resident distress and inconvenience.
  7. The poor communication continued between 26 September 2022 and 12 April 2023. The resident made further calls to the landlord without a response. During this period the landlord issued its stage 1 response. It told the resident that it would provide him a date to replace the windows following its response. It did not maintain the commitments set out in its complaint handling. There was no evidence to that that it provided a date to replace the windows. This further contributed to the resident’s time and trouble.
  8. The landlord acknowledged that it had failed to add the property to its cyclical maintenance programme in its stage 2 response on 5 April 2023. It was fair to accept this failing. It was appropriate to offer additional contact with the resident to provide a date for the works to commence. It said that it expected to have a new programme within 3 weeks of issuing its response. However, it did not follow through with this offer. It should have kept to the commitments set out in its complaint response. It should have provided a date for the works to commence within a reasonable period. It did not, which added to the distress and inconvenience it caused the resident.
  9. The landlord’s £250 offer of redress for the stress and inconvenience in its stage 2 response was not reflective of the detriment caused. The landlord had determined that the windows needed replacement more than 12 months prior to its response. There had been repeat failure to schedule repairs and it failed to manage the risk to the resident.
  10. The landlord’s offer of £500 for its communication failures was reasonable. It was fair to apologise for the lack of response and poor communication. It showed that it had considered the impact of its failures on the resident.
  11. On 30 October 2023 the landlord recognised that it had not added the windows to its programme for 2022/23 and would not return until 2025/26. It was appropriate to recognise that this was unreasonable. Its decision to pass the work to its contractor outside of the cyclical programme was demonstrative of its intention to resolve the substantive issues.
  12. Despite recognising the impact on the resident in its complaint responses, the issues remained outstanding when it surveyed the property on 18 April 2024. There was a further recommendation to replace the windows with double glazed units. The landlord should have promptly scheduled the replacement. It did not and has failed to resolve this issue for around 4 years. The windows remain unchanged. The distress and inconvenience this caused to the resident has not reduced.
  13. The Ombudsman finds severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to windows in the property. Its offer of compensation for communication was reasonable. However, its offer of redress for its failures to manage the repairs to the windows was not reflective of the detriment caused. It has failed to proactively manage its programmed repairs. It failed to keep to its commitments set out in its complaint handling. The issues are unresolved. The landlord has failed to manage the risks to the resident. It should have been clear with the resident when the windows would be replaced. It has made promises to update the resident in its complaint responses that have not been kept.
  14. In deciding an appropriate level of redress in this complaint, the Ombudsman has considered the resident’s level of rent, the landlord’s failures and the inconvenience and distress caused. The landlord should pay the resident compensation of £1,400. This is comprised of:
    1. £500 for the distress and inconvenience caused.
    2. £400 for his time and trouble.
    3. £500 for its communication failures.

Repairs to a skylight and leaking roof

  1. The landlord failed to maintain proper oversight of its repairs to the skylight and leaking roof early in the timeline. Its records show that its contractor first surveyed the roof on 21 December 2021. It identified several repairs that would rectify water penetration into the property. It did demonstrate its intention to resolve the issues when it scheduled the repairs in January 2022. However, there were substantial delays to commence works to repair the roof and skylight. Its failure to resolve the repairs in a timely way caused the resident undue distress and inconvenience.
  2. The repairs remained unresolved throughout 2022. The landlord’s inspection on 6 December 2022 found that the felt roof was still leaking. Around 15 working days later the landlord passed repairs to contractors. The time taken to issue works to its contractor was unreasonable. The landlord did not consider the resident’s circumstances, or the impact the issues could have with prolonged leaks into the property.
  3. In January 2023 the contractor told the landlord it required scaffolding to access the roof and conduct the repairs. There was a delay of around 3 months for the landlord to start organising the scaffolding at the property. This was an unreasonable delay and contributed to the resident’s distress and inconvenience.
  4. The landlord recognised that that there had been too many delays to conduct the repairs in its stage 2 response in April 2023. It was fair to apologise for these delays and appropriate to recognise the impact on the resident. It was appropriate to offer some financial compensation to put things right for the resident. However, its offer of £100 for service failure and £250 for the stress caused did not reflect the detriment caused. The resident had experienced delays to repair leaks coming into his property for around 2 and a half years. In his emails to the landlord following its stage 2 response, he said that there had been damage caused to his flooring because of the leak. The landlord did not make any additional offers to put things right. It should have directed him to claim against its insurance for damages or sought to compensate for the damage caused.
  5. The landlord’s offer to provide a direct point of contact until the works are resolved was fair. The landlord would have had proper oversight of the repairs and resolved them within a reasonable period. Despite this offer, the works continued to drift. Its records show that between April and October 2023 the landlord frequently chased its contractor to get the scaffolding erected. It should have provided regular updates to the resident or investigate other contractors who could provide the scaffolding. It did not and it failed to manage the delays or the resident’s expectations as a result. The failures to have proper oversight of this case caused the repairs to remain unresolved throughout most of 2023.
  6. The Ombudsman recognises that repairs to a leaking roof can be complex and fall outside the normal repair timescales. The landlord was told by its contractor that the roof was repaired on 6 November 2023. When it returned on 26 January 2024 it found the roof was leaking into the kitchen, despite the repairs conducted in November 2023. Its response to the new evidence of leaks was appropriate. It took remedial action to resolve the outstanding leaks immediately. The landlord made reasonable efforts to resolve the issues with the roof in November 2023 and January 2024. It was appropriate for the landlord to rely on the advice provided by its specialist contractors that the issues were resolved.
  7. However, the surveyor on 18 April 2024 found further evidence of leaks in the kitchen. It recommended the landlord repair the ceiling around the skylight in the hallway and decorate. The landlord should have decorated and make good the damage caused by the previous leaks. Its failure to conduct these works earlier in the timeline contributed to the resident’s distress and inconvenience.
  8. The Ombudsman welcomes and encourages landlords to proactively revisit opportunities for the resolution of a complaint. It would have been fair for the landlord to reconsider its offer of compensation in view of the continued delays to resolve the repairs.
  9. The Ombudsman finds maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to a skylight window and leaking roof. The landlord failed to fully address the impact its delays had on the resident. It failed to resolve the leaks from the skylight and roof within a reasonable period. It did not effectively manage the repairs and failed to keep the resident updated throughout. The landlord acknowledged many of its failings, but it failed to follow through with the offers made in its stage 2 response. Its offer of compensation was not reflective of the detriment caused.
  10. In deciding an appropriate level of redress in this complaint, the Ombudsman has considered the resident’s level of rent, the landlord’s failures and the inconvenience and distress caused. The property is 1 bedroom flat and the rooms affected were the kitchen and hallway. While the rooms were not entirely out of use, the resident could not have full enjoyment of them. As a result, the Ombudsman will order increased compensation to put things right for the resident based on the information seen. Our calculation will consider compensation to reflect his loss of use of the rooms, along with a separate award to address the resulting distress and inconvenience.
  11. The Ombudsman has considered the period December 2021 to January 2024 in our calculation. It should pay the resident compensation of £1,140. This compensation should replace the landlord’s offer of £350 in its stage 2 response. It is awarded in recognition of the inconvenience caused to him by not having full use of the property. It is not a rent refund or intended to be an exact calculation of rent paid for that period. It comprises of:
    1. £740 which is around 20% of the rent for the period.
    2. £400 for the distress and inconvenience caused.

The associated complaint

  1. The landlord’s policy states that an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, will be recorded as a complaint. It is important for the landlord to ensure that it maintains its complaint handling commitments, and that it complies with the timeframes set out in its policy. Its responses to both stage 1 and 2 were outside those timeframes.
  2. It is unclear from the records when the resident made his initial complaint. The landlord should have systems in place to maintain accurate records of its communication with the resident. Good record keeping is essential to evidence the action the landlord has taken which then aids in its service delivery, enabling it to respond professionally when something goes wrong.
  3. The Ombudsman is unable to determine if the stage 1 response was issued outside of the timescales set out in its policy. However, the landlord recognised that there were complaint handling failures. Its apology was appropriate for its delay to issue its stage 1 response.
  4. The landlord took around 51 days to issues its stage 2 response. It failed to acknowledge the request to escalate the complaint on 24 January 2023. The failures caused the resident additional time and trouble. Once he contacted the Ombudsman in February 2023, the landlord took around 36 working days to issue its stage 2 response. There was a delay of around 31 days above the 20 working day target set out in the landlord’s policy.
  5. When reflecting on its own complaint handling, the landlord’s stage 2 response was appropriate. It followed the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles: ‘be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes’. It was fair to apologise for its complaint handling failures. Its offer of £200 for its combined failures was reasonable and in line with our own guidance on remedies.
  6. The Ombudsman finds reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling. The landlord’s stage 2 response was detailed and demonstrated its intent to resolve the substantive issues. It broadly responded to the resident’s concerns. Its offer of £200 for its complaint handling failures was reasonable in the circumstances.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme, there was:
    1. Severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to windows in the property
    2. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to a skylight and leaking roof.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
    1. An offer of reasonable redress made in respect of the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Provide a written apology to the resident from the chief executive for the failings identified in this report. A copy of the letter to be sent to the Ombudsman.
    2. Provide a schedule of works to resolve the issues highlighted in the surveyor’s report from 18 April 2024. It must include the replacement of the windows within the schedule of works. It should allocate a single point of contact to the resident who can provide regular updates on a frequency agreed with him. It should ensure that all repairs within the schedule are resolved within 12 weeks of this report.
    3. Pay the resident compensation of £2,740. This amount replaces the landlord’s previous compensation awarded in April 2023. If the landlord has already paid the resident compensation set out at stage 2, this should be deducted from the compensation ordered. The compensation is comprised of:
      1. £500 for the distress and inconvenience caused in its handling of repairs to the windows in the property.
      2. £400 for his time and trouble.
      3. £500 for its communication failures.
      4. £740 which is around 20% of the rent for the period.
      5. £400 for the distress and inconvenience caused in its handling of repairs to a skylight and leaking roof.
      6. £200 for its complaint handling failures
  2. Within 8 weeks of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. In accordance with paragraph 54(g) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord is to provide the Ombudsman with a review conducted by a senior manager to ensure to identify lessons it has learnt from this case and service improvements it has identified. This review should be presented to its senior leadership team and shared with the Ombudsman.
  3. The landlord is to provide evidence of compliance with the above orders to this Service within the timescales set out above.