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

Notting Hill Genesis (NHG) (202214662)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202214662

Notting Hill Genesis (NHG)

30 October 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. Administration of service charges and rent account.
    2. Reports of disrepair and provision of cyclical works.
    3. The complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of a 2 bedroom, second floor flat. Her tenancy began in March 1987.
  2. The resident raised issues of disrepair, communal cleaning, and outstanding cyclical works in 2017. A complaint was raised around the disrepair to the resident’s bedroom in 2017. She raised the concerns again in August 2020, requested a copy of a surveyor’s report which detailed the outstanding works to her property which included gaps in the window frames, broken locks, sash cords, and damp patches. The Ombudsman has not been provided with a copy of this report. She reported that the issues continued into 2024. Cyclical works were last completed in 2004 to the building, scaffolding had been erected in 2018, and taken down after a few weeks and no works were completed.
  3. The landlord informed the resident it had overcharged her on service charges between 2018 and 2020. It is unclear when she was notified. It provided her with rent statement, service charge estimates, and annual statements of actual service charge costs between February 2020 and May 2023. This covered the financial years 2020 to 2024.
  4. The resident raised her complaint on 24 March 2022 due to the incorrect charges applied to her statements and advised she believed its assessment was incorrect. She reiterated her concerns and identified the property did not have a lift, any cleaning services including window cleaning, garden maintenance or bulk waste removal service, but was being charged for them. She raised further concerns about the estimate of communal lighting costs and how it processed the refund of the overcharge between 2018 and 2020. She identified she had raised her concerns around the outstanding issues numerous times. She said no action for the disrepair, cyclical work, or change of windows had taken place and she had raised these numerous times. She forwarded her message to a member of its staff on the same day and advised asides from a broken window in the hallway, nothing had been resolved.
  5. She reiterated her concerns about the cyclical works, especially about the windows. She also raised concerns about the windows in her property. She explained that they were not stable, rattled and were cracked, the sashes and locks were broken, and panes surround the window were loose. She told the landlord she cleaned her own windows both inside and outside and could not do so as she feared the windows would collapse and asked for the matter to be addressed.
  6. Following the Ombudsman’s intervention, on 22 November 2022 the landlord provided its stage 1 response. It:
    1. Apologised for the service failures it identified around the service charges, as it had incorrectly applied several of the charges raised by the resident.
    2. Apologised for its communication issues, and the lack of repairs to her window. It provided information around refunding of overpayments and how it had acted in line with its policy, and that her block was allocated a “category 2” rating for the cyclical works.
    3. Said it aimed to have a schedule of works for 2023/2024 by February 2023 and would provide her with an update after this time.
    4. Advised that she had raised her repair in March 2022, and it had not been repaired. It told her it had raised the works again and its contractor would attend. It said it would ensure that it learned from her complaint, and offered her compensation of:
      1. £100 for its service failure
      2. £250 for its communication failures
      3. £150 for any stress and inconvenience caused.
  7. The resident escalated her complaint on 28 November 2022 as she disagreed with its response. She identified that it had taken 8 months to provide her with a meaningful response, and it failed to properly address her complaint and the queries she had raised. She advised she was unaware of it raising the repair job for her window, and the complaint response was the first time she had heard about it. She also identified that an internal surveyor had previously attended her home due to a recurring wet and damp wall in her bedroom and other disrepair within her home.
  8. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 2 complaint on 24 January 2023 and asked to discuss it with her over the phone. The resident responded on the same day and told it if there were any queries or clarification required, it should be put in writing for her to consider. She also identified she had contacted it about final demand letters she had received, disagreeing with the amount outstanding and that she was wrongly charged service charges. She was still awaiting a response around this issue, and she continued to be charged. She asked it to confirm when she would receive a response to her complaint and her recent emails about why she was still being charged for the services she was incorrectly charged for.
  9. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 6 April 2023. It apologised for the delay in providing its response and carrying out cyclical work to her building. It also apologised that services were incorrectly applied to her service charge, miscommunication about repairs, and its handling of her complaint. It upheld her complaints about the cyclical works to the building, repairs, and its complaint handling. It partially upheld her complaint over its communication around the service charges and apologised for her experience with it over the last year. It offered her compensation of £1750 broken down as:
    1. £250 for its service failure around its communication.
    2. £250 for the stress and inconvenience caused by its communication.
    3. £250 for the miscommunication about her window repairs.
    4. £250 for the delays in handling her complaint at stage 1.
    5. £250 for the delays in its stage 2 response.
    6. £500 for the stress and inconvenience caused to her by having to chase the complaint.

Post complaint.

  1. The resident continued to raise her concerns and made a further complaint in October 2023. She advised the landlord that she was still awaiting the invoices and information she requested for the service charges between 2020 and 2023. She said she had repeatedly complained about the damp wall in her bedroom and there had been water ingress. She had not received any updated since April 2023 or provided with any information around her service charge dispute about whether it was reimbursed to her account. She also informed the landlord she was unable to use her bedroom due to the damp, she was asthmatic, and explained this could have an impact on her health. She also identified she had seen signs of damp in a cupboard in her second bedroom, and mould in a communal cupboard.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation.

  1. The resident has provided evidence dating back to 2017 detailing that she raised her concerns with this landlord at this time. However, due to the length of time which has passed, it would be difficult to obtain accurate records to carry out an investigation about issues going back this far. As such this investigation has primarily focused on the landlord’s handling of the resident’s recent reports that were raised during the landlord’s recent complaint responses between 2022 and 2023.
  2. The resident has also advised that she has raised a further complaint with the landlord in October 2023 around the issue of service charges relating to 2022/2023 and the amount of charges to be applied to 2023/2024. The Ombudsman will not consider this issue within this determination. This is because the landlord needs to be provided with the opportunity to respond to the complaint. Should the resident remain dissatisfied once the landlord has provided its responses, she may wish to bring the matter to the attention of the Ombudsman, and a determination can then be made.
  3. The resident has raised concerns about the level of service charges and rent. Under paragraph 42 (d) of the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme, the Ombudsman is unable to consider the reasonableness, level of, or the amount of increase to service charges, or rent. Such matters are better dealt with by the courts.
  4. The resident has raised concerns around repairs to her kitchen and kitchen tiles. She has also reported seeing signs of damp in a cupboard in her other bedroom. Although the resident raised issues of disrepair in her complaint, she did not specify any issues around the kitchen in either her stage 1 complaint or stage 2 escalation. She also did not specify any further issues around damp in the second bedroom. The Ombudsman is unable to investigate matter which the landlord has not had the opportunity to respond to through its internal complaint’s procedure. As such the Ombudsman will not consider these matters as part of this investigation.
  5. The resident has also raised concerns about the potential impact of damp on her health. The Ombudsman understands the resident’s concerns about the potential impact of the issue on her health and sympathises. However, the Ombudsman is unable to consider this as this was not raised during the initial complaint brought to the landlord or Ombudsman. Further, such issues require a legally binding determination and consideration around issues of causation and liability which are considered by the courts.

Administration of service charges and rent account.

  1. The landlord incorrectly applied service charges which did not apply to the resident’s property to her statement. It was then not until she identified this, that it took corrective action and appropriately removed the charges and acknowledged its error. The Ombudsman acknowledges that mistakes can occur however, in such matters, the landlord should be thorough and ensure the charges applied are correct. This is especially the case as the landlord at the time had recently informed the resident that it had over charged her for 2 years between 2018 and 2020. The failure to ensure it had provided her with accurate information on her charges led to frustration and inconvenience for the resident.
  2. The landlord’s service charges policy states that it will provide clear and accurate service charge budgets for residents. It says that it will provide details on how charges were calculated and what services they represent. It further states that where there are service charge disputes, it will provide residents with clear and concise records throughout the process. Although the landlord has provided the resident with service charge estimates, and actual spend invoices, it has not demonstrated that it provided any explanation, or any records. This in turn led to the resident requesting this information from it. Its actions were not in keeping with the terms of its policy and this was inappropriate.
  3. Although it provided her with information in its stage 2 response in April 2023, this was not the first available opportunity for it to have done so, as she requested this in March 2023. It could have, for example, provided it to her through an email response, prior to its complaint responses. The delay of over 12 months in providing her with some of the requested information was unreasonable and raises questions with the landlord’s communication and record keeping. This also caused the resident frustration, distress, and saw her taking the time to chase the response to her query repeatedly.
  4. It further failed to demonstrate that it explained why it was delayed in providing the requested information during the 12 month period, or that it kept her updated about this. This was inappropriate and raises further concerns with the landlord’s communication.
  5. When the resident requested the information from the landlord during her complaint, it did not demonstrate that it contacted her to clarify what information she requested. This was unsatisfactory, as the failure to do so led to her believing the information it did provide in its stage 2 response was inadequate and remained outstanding. The resident clarified in an email to the Ombudsman on 26 April 2024, that the information she meant were copies of any invoices which informed the charges of the estimate and actuals, across the years. The landlord should have been proactive and inquisitorial in its approach to ensure that it understood what she wanted so it could provide her with all the information she required at the first opportunity. She also continued to chase the information and advised on 26 April 2024 that this information remained outstanding. This represents a delay of over 2 years in providing her with the requested information and this is unacceptable. This caused her frustration and a lack of confidence in the landlord’s actions.
  6. The resident further raised concerns about not being sure that the landlord had not charged her additional costs for late payment of energy bills. It failed to demonstrate that it provided her with any assurance around this issue and this was unreasonable. This may have contributed to her lack of trust in the landlord.
  7. In July 2022, the landlord told the resident it would provide her with a response in 10 working days around her query about the service charges and her complaint. The response then remained outstanding. She had to take the time to seek an update in August 2022, and she was informed that its member of staff who should have provided the update was unavailable. The response then remained outstanding at the time she raised her concerns with the Ombudsman in October 2022. This represents a delay of over 3 months, and this was unreasonable. This caused the resident frustration and added to her lack of confidence in the landlord.
  8. When the landlord provided its stage 1 response in November 2022, it advised that it had decided to consult with residents around the service charge budget for 2023/2024 as good practice. This was an appropriate action to take as it demonstrated that it had taken the resident’s feedback into consideration and looked to improve the service it provided.
  9. The resident also raised concerns about the landlord’s refunding of overpayments. The landlord said this was done in line with its process and it refunded £10 a week to her rent account over a period of 1 year. The landlord has provided no evidence of any policy which underpins this process. As the resident had been overcharged, the landlord should have consulted with her on how she would like the refund to be processed, rather than deciding that it would be refunding it weekly. It should have exercised its discretion, especially as the resident raised concerns around the cost of living in correspondence with it on 28 November 2022. The failure to show that it exercised its discretion, provide any policy underpinning this process, and consult with the resident was unreasonable.
  10. This is especially the case as between December 2022 and March 2023, the resident received several final demand notifications. She explained to it that the amount identified was incorrect as it owed her a refund and she had paid extra money, so did not agree that she owed it any money. She also explained to it in January 2023 that she had not received a response to her email in December 2022 about the initial final demand, or her phone call about the issue. She told it this caused her a great deal of concern and distress. It then did not provide her with an explanation that the messages she received were automated until February 2023, and this was unacceptable. The landlord should have told her that these messages were automated at the first opportunity in December 2022. Its failure to do so caused the resident distress as she identified. This also demonstrates that it did not take a customer focused approach. It should have a system in place allowing it to prevent the automated messages for arrears, especially in such situations where it is aware the arrears are incorrect. It contacted her in January 2023, following her contact regarding the messages and stage 2 acknowledgement and still failed to explain it to her at that time.
  11. The resident then continued to receive the messages after it had explained to her that it would pause her rent account for 28 days to stop them in February 2023. She advised in March 2023, she had also received a telephone call in February 2023 after its assurance of the stop on her rent account. The caller asked her to increase her payment due to the arrears. The resident identified that had the landlord not overcharged her and if it had reimbursed her, she would not be in arrears. This was inappropriate and raises concerns about the landlord’s internal communications, and investigations into the matter. Its failure to properly manage the account caused her frustration, distress, and added to her lack of confidence in the landlord.
  12. The landlord identified that there were failings with its communication. It offered the resident compensation of £500 (£250 for the failings and £250 for the stress and inconvenience caused) for these failings. Although this goes some way in addressing the detriment caused to the resident, this does not go far enough. This is because it does not take account of its failings to consult with the resident to ensure it had provided her with all the information she requested. Despite the fact she told it, that she was still awaiting the information, it remained outstanding, and no evidence has been provided to demonstrate it has provided an appropriate explanation. The compensation also failed to consider the failings to follow its own policies. Based on this the Ombudsman orders that further compensation is to be paid to the resident.
  13. In summary, there were several issues with the landlord’s communication with the resident. It failed to consult with her to identify what information she required. It also failed to demonstrate that it abided by its policy around the provision of information. The requested information remained outstanding as at March 2024, representing a delay of over 2 years. It only realised the inaccurate charges as the resident notified it of them. It should have taken more care to ensure its charges were correct. Despite telling her it would put a stop to the final demand letters she received, she continued to receive them as well as phone calls about arrears. Based on this, the Ombudsman finds that there was maladministration.

Reports of disrepair and provision of cyclical works.

  1. The resident raised her concerns about the disrepair and cyclical works between 2017 and 2020. In 2017, the landlord responded and raised works to the roof to address the disrepair. It also referred the issue around the cyclical works to its complaints team in 2017, however the outcome of this was unclear. It is also unclear if there were issues of damp in the resident’s property in 2017, and what action the landlord took in 2020 around the resident’s reports of damp.
  2. The resident then raised the issues again in 2022. The landlord has explained that the issues around damp, has not been through its complaints process, however, this is unreasonable. This is because she identified in correspondence in 2017 that there were issues with damp in her bedroom. She also informed it in 2020 that there was a report from a surveyor which detailed several repair issues, including damp in her property. When she raised issues of disrepair in her complaint in March 2022, the landlord had multiple opportunities to take an inquisitorial approach, to try to understand and identify what the issues were, and it failed to do so. She further raised the issue of recurring wet and damp and referred to it as disrepair in her stage 2 escalation email in November 2022. The failure to address these issues caused the resident frustration and distress. It also saw her taking the time to repeatedly chase the repairs.
  3. The Ombudsman finds it reasonable to conclude that the landlord’s failure to ask the appropriate questions of the resident, and properly consider her escalation request, amounts to a complaint handling failure. This is because the issues of damp were clearly explained within the request. This means that under paragraph 42 (a) the Ombudsman can consider the issues around the damp as the landlord had a reasonable opportunity to address the issue. This will also form part of its complaint handling failings. In considering the issue, the evidence does not demonstrate that the landlord completed any inspections of the property, nor did it take any reasonable action. The resident has advised that she continues to live with the damp in the property. The lack of action represents a delay of over 2 years in addressing the matter and this is unacceptable. The failure to address this issue in a timely manner demonstrated that the resident was potentially exposed to a category 1 hazard under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System for a substantial amount of time because of its inaction.
  4. The resident also raised concerns about cyclical works. The landlord has also stated this matter has not been through its complaints process. The Ombudsman finds this to be unreasonable as it had also referred her concerns around the cyclical works to its complaints team in 2017. It is unclear what the outcome of this was. The landlord further addressed the cyclical works in its stage 1 and 2 responses to the resident of November 2022 and April 2023. As such the Ombudsman considers the landlord has had reasonable time to respond to the issue.
  5. The tenancy agreement states that the landlord shall keep in good repair the windowsills, window catches, sash cords, putties, window frames and glass. The resident repeatedly raised issues with several of these items, and the landlord has not demonstrated that it took any action to assess whether it needed to either take action to repair them, or that it raised any works to get them repaired. This was inappropriate and not in keeping with the terms of the tenancy agreement. Its failure to act caused the resident frustration and distress and led to her taking the time to repeatedly chase the repairs.
  6. The tenancy agreement also states that the landlord shall decorate the exterior of the building and common parts normally at least every 5 years. From the evidence provided, it has not demonstrated that it did so. The last time cyclical works were completed at the building were in 2004, about 20 years ago. This was inappropriate and added to the resident’s frustrations with the landlord.
  7. If the landlord was aware that there were going to be delays in it completing any cyclical works, it should have provided the resident with updates and appropriate information explaining why such works would not take place when planned. It has not demonstrated that it did, and this caused the resident frustration. It also could have provided her with an explanation about why no works had been completed, when she requested information around this, and it failed to show that it did so. This raises further concerns around the landlord’s communication around the matter.
  8. Although its communal and external enveloping procedure advises that there may be an increase or an extension in the frequency of works to some properties, the tenancy agreement states differently. It places a responsibility on the landlord to complete some works every 5 years, for example with the painting. If it had inspected for example and identified there was no need for any works to be completed, this should have been communicated and explained to the resident. It has not demonstrated that it did this and this was inappropriate.
  9. Across both the cyclical works and the repairs, the landlord failed to properly communicate with the resident to explain the delays in addressing the issues. She repeatedly raised that the issues were outstanding between 2017 and 2023. For example, in her email of 3 August 2020, and in her complaint request of 24 March 2022. Although it addressed the concerns around the cyclical works in its stage 1 response, it failed to provide her with an adequate response about why they remained outstanding since 2004. It failed to demonstrate that it conducted a robust investigation into her complaint and requests around the cyclical works across both of its response. This suggests a lack of transparency by the landlord, raises questions about its investigations into her complaint, and may have contributed to the resident’s distress.
  10. The landlord said the repairs to the windows were first reported in March 2022, but it had failed to repair them. It then advised that it had raised the repairs again and they would be attended to. It however failed to explain to the resident what went wrong and why it failed to respond to her repair requests in a timely manner. This was unreasonable as if there were issues which led to the failure to attend, this should have been communicated to the resident. The failure to attend also raises questions about the landlord’s record keeping as it should have suitable systems and checks in place to ensure repair requests are logged and attended to.
  11. Despite stating that the windows would be attended to by its contractor in the stage 1 response, it again failed to ensure the job was logged as it said in its stage 2 response that it could not see that a repair for the window repairs and that they remained outstanding. This meant that there was a delay of over 1 year in it logging the window repairs, and this was unacceptable. This again raises questions about the landlord’s record keeping practices, as on multiple occasions, it has failed to ensure that the resident’s repairs were appropriately logged. Such actions would have added to the resident’s discontent and lack of trust in the landlord.
  12. The resident has also confirmed that she continues to face issues with the windows as they are still awaiting repairs. This is a delay of over 2 years in effecting a repair. The delays in addressing the repairs to the windows is significantly outside of the timeframes within its repairs policy for routine repairs of 20 working days. This is unacceptable and caused the resident frustration, distress, and a lack of trust in the landlord. It has also seen her taking the time to chase the landlord about the issue.
  13. The landlord told the resident it would provide her with updates and offered to visit her in its stage 2 response. It emailed her in March 2024 advising that it had not done so as it had not heard back from her following its offer. The resident explained, that was the staff members first contact with her, 11 months after the stage 2 response in April 2023. She said she had contacted them on several occasions and did not receive a response. This was unreasonable, as it should have taken a proactive approach to communicate with her and to arrange the visit.
  14. The landlord offered the resident compensation of £250 for the issues with the window repairs only which in the Ombudsman’s opinion, was reasonable. However, it failed to consider the issues around the cyclical works, its communication around the issue of disrepair, and the delays in addressing the repairs to the resident’s property. Its offer of compensation did not go far enough to address the issues faced by the resident. The resident had been telling the landlord about the issues of damp since 2022. She then informed it in February 2024 that she was unable to use the room. It is not possible for this service to determine whether the room was completely or partially unusable for the period. An order has been made for a compensation amount based on approximately 10% weekly rent for the partial loss of use of the bedroom to be paid to the resident. This amounts to £538 and this additional compensation is awarded in recognition of the inconvenience caused to her by not being able to make full use of her property. This is not a rent refund or intended to be an exact calculation of rent paid for that period.
  15. In summary, there were severe delays with the landlord’s handling of the repairs. It advised the resident that it would book the necessary works in relation to the window, in its stage 1 response and failed to do so. It then did not realise this until its stage 2 response despite the resident’s communications. The repairs also remain outstanding. It failed to take an inquisitorial approach to identify what the resident meant by disrepair, and this led to it failing to address her concerns around damp and any other disrepair issues. She also raised this in her escalation request, and the resident has explained she continues to live with the issue. Although it explained the resident’s category 2 rating, around the cyclical works to her in its responses, it did not demonstrate that it provided her with any reason why they remained outstanding for such a long period of time. It also did not demonstrate that it completed works in line with the timeframes within the tenancy agreement or repairs policy. Based on this, the Ombudsman finds that there was severe maladministration.

The complaint.

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy states that it aims to resolve complaints as quickly as possible. It also states that it will investigate and provide a stage 1 response within 10 working days. The resident raised her complaint on 24 March 2022, the Ombudsman then intervened and asked the landlord to provide a response twice before it did so. This raises questions about the landlord’s record keeping. It then provided its stage 1 response on 22 November 2022. This represents a delay of over 7 months before it provided its response. This was unacceptable, and not in keeping with the aim of quick resolution or the timeframes within its policy.
  2. After raising her complaint in March 2022, the resident requested a response from the landlord. She contacted several members of the landlord’s staff to obtain a response and information around the service charges. The evidence demonstrates that she did so between June 2022 and October 2022, a period of 5 months and did not receive a response around the issue and this was inappropriate.
  3. The landlord’s complaints policy also states that if it is unable to resolve all the issues within 10 working days, it will provide an action plan within 10 working days detailing timelines for completion of actions. It would also provide regular updates at agreed times on progress and would agree new timescales for responses if required. The landlord has not demonstrated that it abided by any of these actions within its complaints policy and this was inappropriate. This caused the resident frustration and distress and saw her taking the time to chase responses and escalate her complaint to this service. This raises further questions around the landlord’s record keeping as it should have been aware that it had an outstanding complaint which it needed to respond to.
  4. The landlord’s policy states it will contact a resident within 2 working days of receiving an escalation request to discuss the complaint. The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 28 November 2022. It was not acknowledged until 24 January 2023, after she informed the landlord, it had not done so. It then used this opportunity to ask to speak about her complaint on the phone, but she advised she wanted all correspondence in writing. The landlord has not demonstrated that it contacted her prior to this time to discuss her complaint. This represents a delay of 36 working days. The delay in acknowledging her escalation, and failure to demonstrate it contacted her in line with its policy was inappropriate. It should have proper systems in place to ensure it had accurately recorded the necessary deadlines for acknowledgement and complaint handling. This added to the resident’s lack of confidence in the landlord.
  5. The landlord’s complaints policy states that it will respond to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. If it unable to do so it will provide an action plan, regular updates, and agree new timescales if necessary. The landlord failed to demonstrate it took any of these actions in a timely manner and this was inappropriate. This saw the resident having to take the time to request updates about her stage 2 response.
  6. Although the landlord informed the resident that it would be delayed in providing its response in February 2023, the response was already outstanding by 33 working days. It told her that it aimed to have the response with her by the end of the month, but then delayed by another 25 working days before providing the response. This was unreasonable as it had created an expectation with the resident and then failed to meet this. It also has not provided any evidence that it provided any further updates around the continued delays in its response. This added to the resident’s frustration and distress and raised further concerns with the landlord’s communication.
  7. In total there was a delay of over 3 months in the landlord providing its stage 2 response and this was inappropriate. This exceeds the 20 day timeframe provided within its complaints policy. The overall delays in the landlord’s complaint handling between March 2022 and April 2023 amounts to over a year. It also contributed to the delay in her being able to receive timely resolution to the issues she faced.
  8. The landlord appropriately acknowledged that there were failings in its complaint handling. It acknowledged the delays in its responses and escalation and stated there was a lack of detail in the stage 1 response. It offered the resident £500 (£250 stages 1 and £250 stage 2) for the delays in its complaint handling. It also offered her a further £500 for the stress and inconvenience caused to her for having to chase the complaints. Whilst this goes some way in addressing its failings, it did not go far enough. This is because it failed to properly address her entire complaint, as it did not address all of the issues of disrepair raised by the resident. The Ombudsman has ordered that an extra £200 in compensation is paid to the resident around its complaint handling failure.
  9. In addition to the above, it has been identified that the landlord did not refund the money it said it would within its stage 2 response and it took an additional 18 months for this to ne done. This was an additional failing and it is reasonable for an additional £150 compensation to be made in recognition of this.
  10. In summary, the landlord failed to adequately consider the resident’s complaint and respond to the entire complaint. It did not abide by several actions within its policy. It also failed to abide by the timeframes for the provision of its responses at both stages of its complaints process. There were issues with its communication about the resident’s complaint as it failed to keep her updated and was reactive to her requests for updates rather than proactive. The landlord has acknowledged several of the failings and offered the resident compensation around these which the Ombudsman considers to be inadequate. Based on this, the Ombudsman finds that there was maladministration.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme, there was:
    1. Maladministration with the landlord’s handling of administration of service charges.
    2. Severe maladministration with the landlord’s handling of reports of disrepair and provision of cyclical works.
    3. Maladministration with the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of this report:
  2. A member of the landlord’s Executive team to provide the resident with a written apology about the failings identified within this report.
  3. The landlord must pay the resident compensation of £3638 broken down as:
    1. £1750 offered to the resident within its complaint responses if it has not already been paid. This is to be paid directly to the resident.
    2. £538 in relation to the issue of damp within her property. This is to be paid directly to the resident.
    3. £500 for its handling of the cyclical works, the delays, and the distress and inconvenience caused to her. This is to be paid directly to the resident.
    4. £500 for its handling of the administration of her service charge and rent accounts. This is to be paid directly to the resident.
    5. £350 with its handling of the resident’s complaint. This is to be paid directly to the resident.
    6. Credit the resident’s rent account or pay the resident the amount it said it would within its’s final complaint response.
  4. The landlord must meet and discuss with the resident the exact information she requires around the service charges between 2020 to 2024. Provide her with the information she requests, and if it is unable to do so provide her with an explanation on why it is unable to do so.
  5. The landlord must arrange for a suitably qualified person to attend the resident’s property to inspect and identify required works to deal with the issues of damp and other disrepair raised by the resident. A timeframe for completion of works should be provided to the resident.
  6. The landlord should provide the resident with information on when cyclical works are due to be completed on the building and what works will be done.
  7. The landlord should provide the resident with a schedule of works and timeframe around when the repairs to her windows are to be completed.
  8. The landlord should provide proof of compliance with these orders.