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

Notting Hill Genesis (NHG) (202326862)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202326862

Notting Hill Genesis (NHG)

19 June 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 the resident’s reports that his windows were causing mould in the property.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the property, owned by the landlord and lives there with his family. At the time of the complaint the sale of the property to another landlord was being considered. 
  2. During an annual assessment in early April 2022, the landlord found mould in the resident’s house. Subsequently, a job was raised for mould washes and redecoration of affected rooms, some or all of which are likely to have been undertaken on 6 October 2022. Whilst on-site the contractor carrying out the works contacted the landlord to report that there was mould around the windows. The landlord gave approval to treat these areas. A surveyor then attended at the end of November 2022, but what they found is not confirmed in the available evidence.
  3. In mid-May 2023 the resident complained that he had received no updates on when new windows would be installed in his property after 2 contractors had been to measure up. He said the situation had been ongoing since November 2022 and that there was mould around every window.
  4. The landlord said in its stage 1 response, dated 25 May 2023, that there were delays in the surveyor sourcing a window contractor with the relevant accreditation. It apologised that the repair was overdue and that it had not kept the resident updated. The landlord offered £50 as a gesture of goodwill and said it was expecting the final quote soon.
  5. The resident requested the escalation of his complaint to stage 2 because he was unhappy that the landlord had chosen a contractor who recommended a repair of the windows, over 2 others that recommended replacement. He reported that his child had started using an inhaler, his partner’s mental health was affected, and that he had to throw a bed away, which he implied was because of mould.
  6. In its stage 2 response at the end of July 2023, the landlord said it was unacceptable that the resident waited 6 months for a decision on what was happening with his windows and increased the compensation to £150. It said in the meantime its contractors advised that, although the resident’s windows were at the end of their lifespan, they did not pose a health and safety risk. The landlord advised that it would recommend to the new unconfirmed owner, who would be taking over the management of the resident’s property, to add window replacement to its cyclical works for 2024. Finally, it advised that a damp and mould specialist had inspected the property and that it would undertake the recommendations made.
  7. After the end of the landlord’s complaints process, the damp specialist installed a ventilation system in the property in August 2023. This stopped working in November 2023, and was replaced under warranty.
  8. The resident complained to this Service that his property is affected by mould around the windows. He said belongings have been damaged and his family’s health affected. To resolve his complaint the resident wants the landlord to replace the windows and pay further compensation.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident advised that his family’s health has been affected by prolonged exposure to mould. However, the Ombudsman is not able to make a determination about any links between the landlord’s actions and the resident’s health concerns. We will consider the overall distress and inconvenience that the issues in this case have caused. A determination relating to damages caused to the resident’s health is more appropriate for the courts, and the resident may want to seek appropriate advice if he wishes to consider that option.
  2. In his complaint to this Service, the resident raised new issues that did not form part of his complaint to his landlord. This was that the landlord had not acted on the surveyor’s recommendation to increase the size and number of radiators. He also said the kitchen needs replacing because of mould damage. The resident said he wanted the landlord to address these problems, as well as replacing the windows, to resolve his complaint. While the issues the resident mentioned are linked to the events being investigated here, they need to be raised as a new complaint with the landlord so that it can investigate and explain its actions and decisions. Our position is in-line with paragraph 42(a) of the Scheme which states that the Ombudsman will not consider matters which have not exhausted a landlord’s internal complaints procedure.

Windows and mould

  1. Before the surveyor’s inspection in November 2022, the landlord had applied mould washes to affected rooms in the property in October 2022, including around the windows. While the surveyor’s report has not been seen by this Service, the records from around the time indicate that the reason for the inspection was to assess the windows. Whether this was because mould was still present is unknown.
  2. When the resident complained on 12 May 2023 about the lack of progress and updates after the surveyor’s inspection, more than 6 months had passed. The landlord explained in its stage 1 response of 25 May 2023 that it started looking for window contractors from January 2023, but it gave no reason for the initial 1-month delay and nothing in the available records explains this. The landlord advised that most of the delay was due to the need to appoint window contractors with the necessary accreditation, which records show it began doing from 13 March 2023. It also said that a further delay of around 3 weeks was caused by a contractor, appointed to provide a quote in April 2023, who did not contact the resident. This prompted the landlord to reassign the job to a different contractor, which it did on 18 May 2023.
  3. The landlord acknowledged in its stage 1 response that it had taken longer than its usual timeframe. According to its policy, the landlord aims to complete routine repairs within 20–working days, and for more complex cases it will communicate the timescale to the resident. It is clear from the available evidence that the issue with the resident’s window was complex because it required specialist external contractors. The fact it initially appointed contractors who did not have the right accreditation was clearly a mistake and prolonged matters by about 2 months. Therefore, it was appropriate for the landlord to take accountability for the delays, including the 3-week delay caused by one of the contractors.
  4. The landlord acknowledged that it had taken longer than it should have and that it had not provided the right level of communication in both of its responses. At stage 1 it apologised and offered £50 as a gesture of goodwill. This was then increased to £150 in the stage 2 response of 28 July 2023, by which time the landlord had appointed a contractor to carry out repairs. This amount was in line with the landlord’s compensation policy for situations where there has been a “persistent failure over a prolonged period of time”. It is also in accordance with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance in complaints where a level of distress has been caused and there is no lasting impact.
  5. Additionally, the landlord said it had taken learning from its handling of the resident’s case, which is in-line with its complaints policy in instances of service failure. This included reviewing cases where a specialist contractor has been appointed and for regular updates to be shared with residents, even where there is limited information to pass on. These improvements are a positive step in addressing some of the systemic problems that likely contributed to the service failings that occurred in this case.
  6. In the resident’s escalation to stage 2 on 13 June 2023, he complained that the landlord had “chosen the cheapest option” to address the issue with his windows. This is because it had accepted the recommendations of a contractor that the windows could be repaired although 2 other contractors had quoted for replacing the windows. In its stage 2 response, the landlord said that the windows were at the end of their life, but that the contractor found them to still be working and they did not pose a health and safety risk. While the resident’s frustration that the landlord did not decide to replace the windows is understandable, it is entitled to rely on the findings and recommendations of its specialist contractor.
  7. The landlord also advised that replacing the windows in the houses on the resident’s street had been added to its 2024/2025 programme of works. It explained that this was more economical than replacing just the resident’s windows. The landlord’s response was in-line with its repairs policy, which says it may complete repairs as part of its planned programme if it is more cost effective. It is also up to the landlord to decide on how it uses its funds, and as a social housing provider it is expected to provide value for money.
  8. While the landlord’s reasons for replacing the windows on its programme of works are reasonable, it also advised in its stage 2 that it would not be the owner of the property in April 2024. It reassured the resident that it would recommend to the new owner that they replace the windows under their 2024 planned works. It was not appropriate for the landlord to imply that they would replace the windows as part of their programme of works whilst knowing that they would not be responsible for this when the time came. Despite the confusion, the landlord did enough to explain to the resident the situation regarding the transfer of management.
  9. The resident complained in his escalation to stage 2 that his family’s health was being affected by mould, and it had damaged his child’s bed. The landlord then appointed a damp specialist on 13 June 2023, but what date they inspected the property is unconfirmed. In the final response at the end of July 2023, the landlord said it had received the damp specialist’s findings and would be acting on their recommendations. The recommendations have not been sent to this Service. However, records provided from after the complaints process ended show that a ventilation system was fitted in August 2023. The landlord responded quickly to the resident’s report of reoccurring mould that was impacting his family, and the time it took was not unreasonable given that it engaged a damp specialist.
  10. According to the resident, the mould problem has improved since the ventilation was installed but it is not fully resolved. The landlord advised this Service that the transfer of ownership has not yet gone through, which means that it still has an obligation to maintain the resident’s property. The available records show that a job was raised on 25 January 2024 to apply mould treatment around the windows and to remove and replace seals. Both the resident and landlord confirmed that the window repair is outstanding, but the reasons for this are unclear. The landlord said the resident declined the repair, but no evidence of this was provided to this Service. Either way, in January 2024 the landlord was still open to carrying out the repairs that its specialist contractor advised. This Service has seen no indication that the landlord is not still open to carrying out the work.
  11. It is understandable that the resident is disappointed that his windows were not replaced, but the Ombudsman is satisfied that the explanations the landlord has given are reasonable. There were avoidable delays in the landlord reaching its decision and it failed to keep the resident updated. It has though taken appropriate steps to resolve the complaint.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has taken action which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint about his windows.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should consider carrying out an annual inspection of the resident’s property, in accordance with its Damp and Mould policy. It should also consider contacting the resident again about the outstanding window repairs and the timescale for the replacement.