Notting Hill Genesis (202122043)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202122043

Notting Hill Genesis

7 November 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 response to the resident’s reports about drainage to the en-suite bathroom at the property.

Background

2. The resident is a 30% shared ownership leaseholder of the property owned by the landlord commencing 10 September 2019.
3. In November 2020 the resident reported a smell coming from her ensuite shower drain. A landlord-appointed plumber attended the property in January 2021 and advised the resident to put water in the drain to change the water levels. This did not rectify the problem and the resident reported the same issue again in February 2021, with the plumber then fitting a valve. The issue persisted however, with the resident further stating that the valve had resulted in the drains making “gurgling noises.”  To this she was informed that the issue was now sitting with the building developers. The resident chased this up with the landlord in June 2021 unsuccessfully.
4. The resident submitted a complaint to the landlord in August 2021. She was dissatisfied with the landlords lack of communication/updates and the length of time the repairs to the drain in her shower were taking to complete. The landlord responded at stage one of its complaints process on 19 August 2021, apologising to the resident for the overall service received and offering compensation of £30 for its acknowledged service failure. It detailed similar issues that had been reported by other residents of the scheme and its attempts to fit valves in order to resolve these issues, with no success. It also confirmed that it was in the process of arranging a further inspection, though this was taking time due to difficulties in obtaining the specialist equipment required.
5. The resident remained dissatisfied and requested escalation of the complaint. The landlord’s final response of 15 October 2021 again apologised for the time taken to provide a resolution; it also advised that it remained unclear as to what was causing the smell from the drainage at the property, despite it having received reports on this issue since 2019. It confirmed that external jetting of the drains had taken place since August, which had not resolved the issue. It also said that it was now working with the building developers to determine if the issue related to a building defect. It agreed to update the resident later that month and increased its offer of compensation to £100, with additional service failures acknowledged relating to its communication.
6. The resident remains dissatisfied, namely due to the smell persisting and does not believe the compensation awarded reflects the distress and inconvenience to her.

Assessment and findings

7. Within the residents occupancy agreement, clause 5:3 outlines that the landlord is responsible for maintaining, repairing, renewing and improving the drainage system. The landlord’s repairs policy confirms that leaseholders individual occupancy agreements will clarify repair responsibilities. The repairs policy also confirms that leaseholders are responsible for identifying latent defects within properties and that, in certain circumstances, a building developer will be able to take action to resolve issues as they are identified, even if they occur outside of the defects period.
8. The landlord took over two months to send out a plumper upon the residents first report on 16 November 2020, with the plumber not attending until 28 January 2021. There is no evidence to establish the reason for this delay, or what steps the landlord had taken immediately upon receiving the resident’s report. The January 2021 plumber advised that water levels required addressing, though this did not result in a resolution and the resident subsequently made a further report on 10 February 2021. In response to this second report, the plumber re-attended (18 February) and fitted a valve, which also failed to resolve the issue.
9. The resident then made a further report (4 March 2021) that the drainage issue persisted. On 10 March 2021, it was confirmed to the resident that the issue had been passed to the developer. Whilst the initial delay (between November 2020 and the end of January 2021) provides evidence of unreasonable delay on the part of the landlord, the remainder of its actions up until that point present as reasonable. It looked to find a resolution to the issue and ultimately concluded that the issue was one that required to be progressed to the developer. However, whilst the landlord’s actions were reasonable during this limited timeframe, the drainage issue remained and there then followed a period of no communication with the resident, ultimately resulting in her submission of a formal complaint on the issue.
10. It presents as a reasonable action on the landlord’s part to have involved the developer, as the issue at hand presented as a latent defect, which the developer might ultimately be responsible for. This was also in accordance with the landlord’s repairs policy that confirms that it will involve the building developer if a defect is identified by the resident following the completion of the initial defects period. However, the resident does not have a working relationship with the developer and it was essential that the landlord ensured that the resident (and any other residents in the same situation) were kept abreast of progression on this issue. There is however, no evidence that this was the case.
11. The landlord’s stage one response of August 2021 confirmed that the resident was just one of a number of residents on the scheme that had experienced and reported these same issues. It confirmed that valves had been fitted to some properties, which had helped for a while but that the issue had returned. It said that it was waiting for a contractor appointment to become available, with the specialist equipment required causing an issue in arranging this.
12. It is appreciated that this issue was complex, with the landlord’s initial attempts to resolve proving unsuccessful. At the time of its stage one response, in August 2021, it confirmed that it was on a waiting list with four different contractors in order to ensure that the issue was progressed as promptly as possible. It apologised and offered a small amount of compensation at this stage, reflecting its understanding of the inconvenience caused to the resident and its contribution to this.
13. Following the stage one response, a CCTV survey was completed to external areas of the estate (14 September 2021), which did not identify any clear issues that might be causing the drainage issues on the scheme. The resident remained dissatisfied however and escalated her complaint. She referenced poor communications on the landlord’s part, including incorrect address stated on its complaint response; she also asked that it explain why its communications had been so poor throughout. She asked why there had been a delay in the landlord taking action to carry out repairs and asked why she remained waiting for the planned inspection.
14. The landlord’s records show that its contractor attended the scheme on 11 October 2021 to carry out site wide high pressure water jetting in order to clear out scaling within pipework and to wash out the main sewer. These works cleared the main pipelines, though internal inspections to individual flats on the same date identified that it could not high pressure jet wash the pipework servicing the flats as this might cause ‘blow back to connecting flats on different floors’. The records show that the resident’s flat could not be accessed on this date. The contractor concluded however that the smell within bathrooms was caused by ‘induced siphonage’ and recommended works to resolve this, including changing traps within individual properties, descaling stack pipes and CCTV surveying each individual property.
15.  The landlord’s stage two and final response of 15 October 2021 again apologised for the resident’s experience and acknowledged that the issue remained unresolved. It confirmed that repeated surveys had taken place since it had first received reports on this issue in 2019, though it still had no clear idea as to the cause. It confirmed that it was now working with the developers to determine if the issue related to a building defect. It confirmed that it regularly updated the resident’s association, though acknowledged that the resident might not be party to these updates. It said that it would update her the following week and apologised for incorrectly addressing its previous complaint response. Based upon the additional communication failures it had acknowledged, the landlord increased its offer of compensation to £100.
16. The landlord, in conjunction with the building developer, continued to work to resolve the issues experienced by the resident. In March 2022 the drainage system was cleaned, with individual basins being jetted. It is not clear if these works have resolved, or at least improved the drainage issues at the resident’s property.
17. In all the circumstances of the case, the Ombudsman accepts that the landlord largely acted reasonably in its attempts to identify and resolve the drainage issues experienced by the resident. However, it was appropriate that it identified communication failures throughout, including a failure to keep residents updated outside of the resident’s association updates it was providing. It also apologised and acknowledged an initial delay in taking action.
18. The landlord offered a total amount of compensation of £100 for its acknowledged service failures on this case, however, in the Ombudsman’s view, this figure did not sufficiently compensate the resident for the impact the landlord’s failures had on her in relation to what was clearly a very distressing issue. The initial delay in taking any action at all would have been highly distressing and the lack of updates would have increased her sense that nothing was being done. As such, an overall finding of service failure has been identified here, with an order to increase the amount of compensation to a figure reflecting a detriment over a protracted period.
19. In addition, the landlord is ordered to provide the resident with a written statement outlining all actions taken on this issue since the completion of the complaints process. This report to include details of any inspections or works that have been completed.

Determination

20.  In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about drainage at the property.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

21. The landlord to pay compensation of £250 to the resident to reflect the service failures identified. This sum to include any amounts already paid.
22. The landlord to write to the resident confirming all actions taken in respect of the drainage at the site from the end of the complaints process onwards, ensuring that the details of all site inspections and any planned works are detailed.
23. The landlord to ensure that the above orders are completed within 28 days of this report, with evidence of compliance to be provided to this Service by the same date.