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

Notting Hill Genesis (202102678)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202102678

Notting Hill Genesis

21 January 2022


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 a door repair.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord.
  2. The landlord has said that contractors attended on 18 March 2020 in response to the resident’s concerns about her door. The contractors recommended a door, and frame replacement, but work was postponed due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
  3. The landlord also explained that a surveyor attended on 25 August 2020 to verify the initial report and suggested a repair to the door frame. It said during the appointment the resident’s son displayed unacceptable behaviour which caused work to be put on hold whilst the landlord addressed this breach of the tenancy agreement. The landlord has said it arranged for the repair to take place on 28 September 2020, but due to the estimated cost of the work, it required further approval internally before the repair could go ahead. It said it booked the repair for 14 December 2020 but during the appointment, the resident’s son was abusive to the contractor. The incident was referred to the police.
  4. The resident raised a formal complaint to the landlord on 2 February 2021. She said the door repair was outstanding and left insecure access to her home. She said she was concerned the issue could cause further damage to the property if it remained unresolved. She said the issue had been ongoing for a long time. She said the repair caused a draught to come through the door frame and made her home feel cold.
  5. The landlord issued its stage one complaint response in either February or March 2021 (the exact date is unclear from the information provided). It said it had been unable to complete the repair work due to the risk of aggression from the resident’s son. Following the incident in August 2020 it wrote to the resident and explained that she was responsible for the behaviour of those in her household. The police had concluded their investigation from the incident in December 2020 resulting in a public order offence being recorded against the resident’s son and an alert registered to her address. The landlord warned that further similar allegations could jeopardise her tenancy and confirmed its contractors would reattend to complete the repair. It concluded by explaining how the resident could escalate her complaint if she remained dissatisfied.
  6. The resident emailed the landlord on 29 April 2021. She asked to escalate her complaint due to the outstanding repair.
  7. The landlord emailed the resident on 7 May 2021. It said its contractors had refused to return as they said she had advised she was taking legal action against them. It explained that its contractors reserved the right to decline work orders. It had raised the order with a new contractor and they would be in contact to arrange the repair.
  8. On 27 May 2021 the resident confirmed she wanted to escalate her complaint. She said an appointment was arranged for 22 May 2021, but the contractors did not attend.
  9. The landlord confirmed with the resident on 4 June 2021 that it had escalated her complaint. It apologised that the contractors did not attend. It said it had spoken to them and they advised that they had been unable to contact the resident and rearrange the appointment. It asked when she was available. The resident responded on 7 June 2021, and said she was available as soon as possible.
  10. The landlord emailed the resident on 15 June 2021 and said its contractor had advised that the repair had been completed. It asked for her confirmation of this. On 17 June 2021 the resident advised that the work was incomplete.
  11. The landlord issued its stage two complaint response on 8 July 2021. It reiterated that its contractors had refused to attend in May 2021, and so it organised for different contractors to attend instead. It offered her £30 compensation for the missed appointment on 22 May 2021. It said the new contractors would attend on 12 July 2021 to complete the repair. It reiterated that her son’s behaviour had been unacceptable and was a reason why the repair had been prolonged. It offered her a further £50 compensation for the delay from September until December 2020. It offered her £50 compensation in view of delays in its stage one and two complaint responses.
  12. The landlord issued a follow up complaint response on 16 November 2021. It explained that its contractors carried out an inspection rather than repair work on 12 July 2021. It also said there had been two missed appointments in September 2021, and an appointment in October 2021 in which contractors did not complete the work. It’s contractors had confirmed that they reattended on 13 November 2021 and completed the repair. It apologised for the delays and offered an additional £415 compensation in view of this. This comprised of £115 for the missed appointments, and £300 for the stress and inconvenience caused. To prevent a repeat of the delays she had encountered, it had set up weekly contractor meetings where it discussed outstanding work orders. It hoped this approach would help improve its service and reduce unnecessary delays.
  13. Evidence has been provided for this investigation to show that the repair was not completed on 13 November 2021. The landlord rearranged the appointment for 14 January 2022. It is unclear whether the work has now been completed. 

Assessment and findings

  1. The landlord’s compensation procedure sets out that it can offer £30 for a missed appointment. It can offer over £250 when there has been an exceptional impact on the resident. This could be when there have been multiple service failures, or a significant delay resolving the issue.
  2. The landlord’s repairs policy states that it is responsible for repairs to doors. The landlord aims to complete routine repairs which are non-urgent repairs to rectify or prevent damage within 20 working days.
  3. The resident’s tenancy agreement explains that she must not use or allow (members of her household) to use any threatening, violent or aggressive language or behaviour against any of the landlord’s employees or contractors. 
  4. The landlord has acknowledged that there were delays in completing the door repair. However, it has said the delays were partially due to the resident’s son’s conduct during previous appointments. It was reasonable for the landlord to delay the door repair pending the outcome of the police investigation into the resident’s son’s behaviour. This is because the landlord has a responsibility towards the safety of its staff and contractors and it was entitled to assess any risks to its staff and contractors before allowing them to enter a property to complete repairs. Following this incident, the landlord’s contractors refused to attend the resident’s property again. The landlord cannot force a contractor to attend a property if they have said they do not feel safe there. In view of this, it was reasonable for the landlord to arrange for a different contractor to attend to complete the repair and this inevitably caused a delay, which was beyond the landlord’s control.
  5. As explained above, the resident is responsible for the behaviour of members of her household and it was reasonable for the landlord to remind her of this responsibility and inform her that it may take action against her if there were any other incidents involving her son’s behaviour.
  6. The landlord has also acknowledged that there was a delay from September until December 2020 whilst it sought internal approval for the cost of the repair work. The landlord has offered compensation for this delay as well as for a missed appointment in May 2021 and delays in its responses to the resident’s complaint. The landlord subsequently increased its compensation offer following further delays until November 2021.
  7. Whilst the landlord is entitled to scrutinise and seek additional approval for high-cost repairs, the landlord should ensure that this process does not cause significant delays to the repair being completed. The delays to the landlord’s complaint responses were also unreasonable and these delays would have caused significant distress and inconvenience to the resident as she was waiting for the repair to be completed for a long time. This has been considered when assessing whether the landlord’s offer of compensation was reasonable in view of all the circumstances.
  8. The Ombudsman also notes that the repair was not completed in November 2021 and was rescheduled for January 2022, causing a further delay.
  9. Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman looks to see whether the landlord did enough to put things right for the resident. Landlords are expected to follow The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles, which are to be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes. In this case, the landlord successfully followed these principles. It acknowledged its shortcomings, offered compensation  committed to completing the work, and demonstrated its learning from this complaint by explaining the measures it would take to prevent similar issues occurring in the future.
  10. The landlord’s overall offer of compensation was reasonable. It was in line with compensation policy as explained above. It is also in line with the Ombudsman’s own remedies guidance (published on our website). The remedies guidance suggests awards of £250 to £750 in instances when there has been considerable service failure or maladministration, but there may be no permanent impact on the complainant. Examples can include failure over a considerable period of time to act in accordance with policy, for example when carrying out repairs.
  11. As part of her complaint the resident has reported that the door was insecure and was letting a draught in to her property, making it feel cold. She also raised concerns that the damage would get worse due to the delays in repairing the door. The Ombudsman has not disregarded the resident’s concerns and as explained above, it is accepted that there were delays which would have caused the resident significant distress and inconvenience. However, the landlord’s records do not indicate that the door was unsafe or insecure, although it was in need of repair.As such, the landlord’s overall offer of compensation, and commitment to complete the repair in January 2022 were reasonable steps to remedy its shortcomings and these steps were proportionate to the impact the landlord’s failings had on the resident.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 55 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to our investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

Reasons

  1. The landlord’s overall offer of compensation was reasonable to remedy its shortcomings with regards to its handling of the door repair.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord pays the resident the £545 as previously offered and completes the door repair within four weeks, if it has not done so already. The Ombudsman’s finding of reasonable redress was made on the basis of this being done.