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

Notting Hill Genesis (NHG) (202307116)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202307116

Notting Hill Genesis (NHG)

31 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 the resident’s requests for new keys to his flat and bike shed.

Background

  1. The resident is a leaseholder of a flat in a block of flats.
  2. On 20 February 2023, the resident contacted the landlord and made an urgent request for 2 new key fobs for his flat. The landlord acknowledged the request on 21 February 2023. It advised the resident to make a payment for the key fobs online. It said after receiving payment, it would send out the key fobs to him.
  3. The resident contacted the landlord again on 22 February 2022 and requested for 2 extra keys for the bike shed. There were multiple communications between the resident and the landlord from 22 February 2023 until 14 March 2023 regarding the resident’s requests for new keys.  The landlord explained that it was having difficulties getting the key fobs for the resident’s flat.
  4. The resident made a formal complaint on 14 March 2023. In summary, he complained about delays in the landlord providing him with new keys to his flat and the bike shed. He stated that ‘it had been almost a month and the key fobs had not been delivered’. He stated he was unhappy with the service provided by the landlord and its property management officer.
  5. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 28 March 2023. In summary:
    1. It apologised for the delays in providing new key fobs and for distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.
    2. It acknowledged that there was service failure due to poor communication.
    3. It acknowledged that the unexpected change in property management officer impacted the service the resident received.
    4. It stated that its current method of programming key fobs was not efficient and it was obtaining quotes for an upgraded system. It stated that the upgraded system would reduce the difficulty in issuing fobs to residents in future.
    5. It explained that it had taken some learning from the unexpected departure of the property management officer and was looking at ways of improving communication with residents.
    6. It stated that it had rescheduled the programming of the resident’s key fobs and it would keep him updated.
    7. It offered the resident £250 compensation for the service failure and distress and inconvenience caused.
  6. The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s stage 1 response and he escalated his complaint to stage 2 on 31 March 2023. In summary:
    1. He stated that he still had not received the key fobs.
    2. He requested for a full reimbursement of the portion of the service charge that covered the property management officer.
    3. He requested for a full reimbursement of the costs of the 2 key fobs and a payment of £50 for each day the fobs were not delivered, commencing from 22 March 2023.
  7. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 28 April 2023. In summary:
    1. It apologised to the resident. It stated that the resident had been unduly impacted by its inability to provide him with replacement key fobs. 
    2. It stated that the management service provided by the property management offices was below its expected level of service. It agreed to refund a portion of its management fee back to the resident
    3. It said it was unable to offer compensation of £50 per day for when the resident did not have access to the key fobs. It stated that it previously offered the resident £250 compensation at stage 1 which was the highest amount it could give under its compensation policy.
    4. It apologised for the gap in communication and acknowledged that the resident had to continually chase it for updates.
    5. It stated that it had installed a working keypad and would provide the resident with access codes to enter the flat.
    6. It recognised the need for additional support at the resident’s flat and it had appointed an estates manager to work closely with the property management officer to help manage repairs.
    7. It said the estate manager would also provide support to the property management officer on the sustainability of the flat entry system.
    8. It offered the resident total compensation of £500. £250 in recognition of its communication failures and £250 offered at stage 1, for delays in providing the key fobs.
  8. The resident escalated his complaint to this Service as he remained unhappy with the landlord’s handling of his complaint and the compensation offered. The complaint became one that this Service could investigate on 16 June 2023.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s requests for new keys to his flat and bike shed.

  1. When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its Dispute Resolution Principles. These are high level good practice guidance developed from the Ombudsman’s experience of resolving disputes, for use by everyone involved in the complaints process. There are three principles driving effective dispute resolution:

a. Be fair– treat people fairly and follow fair processes;

b. Put things right, and;

c. Learn from outcomes.

  1. The Ombudsman must first consider whether a failing on the part of the landlord occurred, and if so, whether this led to any adverse effect or detriment to the resident. If it is found that a failing did lead to an adverse effect, the investigation will then consider whether the landlord has taken enough action to ‘put things right.’
  2. The resident made his initial request for 2 key fobs to access his flat on 20 February 2023 and a subsequent request for 2 extra keys to the bike shed on 22 February 2023. The resident then contacted the landlord again on 28 February 2023 and asked it to respond to his requests. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to respond to the resident’s correspondence promptly and without prompting from the resident. The landlord not responding to the resident’s emails promptly would have understandably made him feel that his requests were not being taken seriously and caused unnecessary distress and inconvenience.
  3. Furthermore, the landlord records showed that the resident contacted the landlord 8 times between 21 February 2023 and 13 March 2023 requesting updates on when the key fobs and bike shed keys would be delivered. The landlord failed to keep the resident updated as such he was constantly chasing it for updates and was unduly involved in the repairs process. This was a failing and not in line with the landlord’s repairs policy which states that residents should be updated on the progress of their repairs.
  4. The landlord informed the resident that its contractor’s would attend the property to programme the resident’s key fob on 13 March 2023 and 22 March 2023. However, the landlord’s contractors did not attend either appointment.
  5. This Service would have expected the landlord to acknowledge the missed appointments, provide an explanation for the missed appointments and give the resident a new date when the contractors would attend. The landlord did not provide any explanation regarding the missed appointment until it issued its stage 1 response on 28 March 2023. This was a failing and not in line with this Service expectation regarding how landlords should communicate with residents.
  6. The resident’s request for new key fobs and bike shed keys can be considered routine repair requests. The landlord’s repairs policy states that routine repairs should be completed within 20 working days.
  7. The resident requested for the door entry key fobs on 20 February 2023 and the keys to the bike shed on 22 February 2023. According to the landlord’s repairs policy it should have responded to the resident’s requests within 20 working days by 20 March 2023 and 22 March respectively.
  8. The landlord’s repair records do not show exactly when the bike shed keys were delivered to the resident. However, in its correspondence to the resident on 20 March 2023, it asked him to confirm that he had received the bike shed keys. This suggests that the landlord responded within its timeframe of 20 working days to the resident’s requests for the bike shed keys. Landlords are encouraged to keep clear records of repairs and communicate regularly with resident’s about their repairs. The landlord has not done do in this case. This was a failing.
  9. With regards to the resident’s request for key fobs to his flat, the landlord’s stage 2 response on 28 April 2023 explained that it was unable to issue the resident with a new key fob. Instead, it had installed a new keypad and would grant access codes to all the residents to gain access to their buildings.
  10. It is understandable that the new system might have resulted in the repair taking longer than 20 days. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have kept the resident updated regarding any additional delays.
  11. The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for key fobs was 39 days outside the 20 working days timeframe to respond to routine repairs. Furthermore, it did not keep the resident adequately informed about the delays. This delay and lack of communication would have understandably caused the resident unnecessary distress and inconvenience. This was a failing and not in line with its repairs policy.
  12. Where there are failings by a landlord, as is the case here, this Service will consider whether the redress offered by it (including an apology and compensation) put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, this Service considers whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with our dispute resolution principles to be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
  13. The landlord did not dispute that there were failings in its handling of the resident’s request for key fobs and bike shed keys. In its stage 1 and stage 2 responses it acknowledged these failings and it made reasonable attempts to put things ‘right’. Such as:
    1. It shared lessons learnt with regards to the unexpected departure of the property management officer and put in place methods to prevent delays and improve future communication with residents regarding their repairs.
    2. It decided to invest in an upgraded door entry system which would allow remote programming of fobs removing the need to rely on external contractors for the key fobs to be programmed.
    3. It noted that contractors did not attend appointments on scheduled dates and reported this issue to senior management to ensure contractors would be held accountable for their failure to provide a satisfactory service.
    4. It acknowledged and apologised for the missed contractor appointments. It provided a different way for resident to have access to the building while it was securing the upgraded door entry system.
    5. It acknowledged and apologised for the service failures and distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.
    6. It offered £500 compensation for poor communication and delays in responding to the resident’s requests.
  14. There was service failure by the landlord. However, it offered compensation in line with that awarded for service failure as suggested in this Service remedies guidance, it replaced the resident’s door entry system, it apologised and demonstrated learning from the issue. These actions were reasonable and in line with this Service dispute resolution principles.
  15. This Service finds there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s requests for new keys to his flat and bike shed.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Scheme, there was reasonable redress offered in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for new keys to his flat and bike shed.

Recommendation

  1. The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord pays the resident the £500 compensation it previously offered (if it has not yet done so). The finding of reasonable redress is on the basis that this payment is made to the resident.