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

Notting Hill Genesis (NHG) (202217436)

Back to Top

A blue and grey text

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202217436

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 reports of a leak.

Background

  1. The resident is a leaseholder of the landlord in a 1-bedroom ground-floor apartment.
  2. On 24 October 2022 the resident reported drain water leaking into his home from a neighbouring property. He reported another leak on 3 November 2022. On 15 November 2022 the landlord’s contractor attended and ‘jetted’ the neighbour’s balcony. On 17 November 2022 another contractor attended and informed the landlord that they would need to complete a CCTV survey of the drain to establish the source of the leak.
  3. On 24 November 2022 the resident raised a formal complaint. He said that despite reporting the leak as an emergency repair on 24 October 2022 the landlord had not identified the root cause nor resolved it. He felt the landlord was responsible for multiple service failures which caused him distress. He added that he had taken time off work to accommodate contractors and spent time and effort chasing the landlord. As an outcome, he wanted the landlord to identify and repair the leak, the landlord to pay the £200 excess on his insurance claim, and it to make good his son’s bedroom. The same day the landlord’s contractor attended to assess the leak where they found no problems with the drainage. Instead, they found structural cracking of the brickwork and asphalt of the neighbour’s balcony and subsequently recommended works to resolve the matter.
  4. On 8 December 2022 the landlord responded to the complaint at stage 1 of its complaints process. In summary, it said:
    1. It had arranged an appointment for its contractor to attend on 9 November 2022 but they could not access the neighbour’s flat.
    2. It had arranged a new appointment for 15 November 2022 but the contractor only jetted the front drain due to confusion about the work required.
    3. It asked a new contractor to assess the issue on 16 November 2022, where they recommended a CCTV survey of the drains.
    4. Due to the contractor’s availability, it had instructed another contractor to assess the issue on 24 November 2022 who recommended various external works.
    5. The cost of the recommended works exceeded £250 per leaseholder therefore it needed to carry out a section 20 consultation.
    6. As the works were urgent it would carry out a reduced consultation which would commence on 9 December 2022 and end on 14 December 2022.
    7. It apologised for not meeting its expected standard of service. It would offer £200 to offset the insurance for the ceiling repair and £200 for the stress and inconvenience caused by the lack of communication.
  5. The following day the resident escalated his complaint. He was unhappy that the landlord had not provided a timescale for resolution and the amount of compensation offered. He explained that further water leaks had happened since his initial report in October 2022 and he had not received payment of his insurance excess. Further, he added that the landlord had not addressed the making good of his son’s bedroom.
  6. On 15 February 2023 the landlord sent a section 20 consultation letter to neighbouring properties concerning the proposed repairs to resolve the leak. On 16 February 2023 the landlord issued its stage 2 final response. In summary, it said:
    1. The officer dealing with the original section 20 consultation process had left the business and had to redo it.
    2. It acknowledged the leak remained unresolved meaning the resident could not effectively use the bedroom.
    3. It acknowledged that the delays would have significantly impacted him and offered £300 per month until it had resolved the matter.
    4. It would offer to waive the costs of the section 20 consultation.
    5. It would offer an additional £1,200 for the service failures associated with the leak and £300 in recognition of the delayed stage 2 response and having to re-start the section 20 process.
  7. In May 2023 and June 2023 the resident asked this Service to investigate his complaint. He said there had been no progress since February 2023 and there had been another leak into his son’s bedroom. He added that the situation had affected his wellbeing. In July 2023 the landlord offered the resident a further £750 compensation for lack of communication, updates, and overall service.

Assessment and findings

  1. The landlord does not dispute that there were failings in its handling of the reported leak. Where the landlord admits failings, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the landlord resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances and offered appropriate redress. When considering this, the Service assesses whether the landlord’s actions were in keeping with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: Be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
  2. Normally a lease outlines what repairs the resident and landlord are responsible for. In this case, it is not disputed that the landlord was responsible for identifying and resolving the reported leak. The landlord’s ‘leaks affecting ceiling procedure’ states that it must raise all leaks going through ceilings as an emergency repair even if containable. It adds that if the leak is likely coming from another property or is affecting another property, a landlord staff member will need to contact those residents and advise them of the 4-hour attendance time.
  3. Following the resident’s initial 24 October 2022 report of a leak coming from a neighbouring property it is unclear why the landlord did not attend to this as an emergency, in line with its procedure. This was a failure on its part and the resident was entitled to believe that it would attend to the leak within 4 hours. Moreover, the resident had to chase the landlord for an update on progress toward the end of October 2022. This would have caused frustration to the resident who would have likely felt the landlord was not taking the situation seriously.
  4. The landlord also failed to treat the resident’s November 2022 report of a further leak as an emergency. Instead, it told the resident there was a target date of 20 November 2022 which suggested it was treating the matter as a routine repair. This was inappropriate and the landlord again failed to act in line with its procedure. This was despite it being aware that the leak was likely coming from a neighbouring property, through the resident’s ceiling. Furthermore, the resident said the landlord had told him it would treat these reports as an emergency. This indicated that it had provided him with conflicting information and caused time and trouble to the resident who had taken time off work for contractors to attend.
  5. There were further issues with appointments in November 2022. This was mostly due to, what appeared to be, communication issues with the landlord’s contractor. Its contractor failed to attend an appointment for 9 November 2022. Further, when they attended on 15 November 2022, they simply ‘jetted’ the neighbour’s balcony instead of accurately assessing the cause of the leak. This is concerning and shows a disconnect between the landlord and its contractor. In addition, it was left to the resident to inform the landlord of these failed appointments. This delayed getting matters resolved and would have caused further distress and inconvenience to him.
  6. The landlord then acted appropriately by instructing a different contractor to assess the leak on 17 November 2022. This contractor advised they would need to carry out a further assessment using CCTV, however, they stated that they were only available to do this on 5 December 2022. While this showed a lack of foresight on the landlord’s part it acted fairly by instructing yet another contractor to carry out the CCTV sooner, on 24 November 2022. This demonstrated flexibility and a willingness to resolve the matter.
  7. Subsequently, the landlord again acted fairly by agreeing to reduce the length of the section 20 consultation period. This showed it had considered the urgency of the situation in line with its leasehold repairs procedure which states that when the repair is an emergency the landlord can start work without the required section 20 notice period. In this case, it was appropriate to do so. However, as it had not recorded the previous December 2022 consultation it had to re-do this in February 2023. Although it is unclear when the landlord became aware of this error and whether it could have acted sooner, this was avoidable and further delayed matters. Additionally, this indicates issues with the landlord’s record keeping. This Service has not made any orders or recommendations in this respect as we have made similar orders in other landlord cases.
  8. Furthermore, the landlord did not issue the section 20 estimates notice until 15 June 2023. This was despite the consultation ending on 1 March 2023. While this Service recognises that the landlord had to carry out a tender for the work, this was another delay of over 2 months, and the landlord should have acted more urgently given the circumstances. Moreover, the notice stated that the expected works would begin at the end of June 2023 however it is unclear if this happened, and the resident suffered a further leak due to heavy rainfall in June 2023.
  9. In August 2023, following another report of a further leak the landlord advised that although the contractor had completed the recommended November 2022 works, they had now identified that the leak was coming from damaged pipework within the building. The repairs to this pipe were carried out on 22 September 2023 and it appeared the landlord’s contractor resolved the leak.
  10. Overall, it took the landlord almost 11 months to resolve the leak and a series of failings contributed to the delays. It failed to treat the issue as an emergency from the outset, there were communication issues with its contractor and the section 20 process was unnecessarily delayed. Further, the resident had to regularly chase the landlord for updates throughout. These were serious failings that had a significant impact on the resident.
  11. Nevertheless, the landlord identified many of these failings and awarded compensation in recognition. In its stage 2 response, it offered £1,200 for the service failures associated with the leak which it calculated based on £300 per month the leak remained unresolved (October 2022 – February 2023). In addition, it paid a further £300 per month after February 2023, while the leak remained unresolved, and a lump sum of £750 was compensated in July 2023. Overall, the compensation awarded by the landlord exceeded £4,000. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance suggests awards of up to £1,000 should be considered for failures which have significantly affected the resident. As such the redress offered was over and above what we would award for the failures identified in this report. In view of this, this Service has made a finding of reasonable redress. However, a recommendation has been made for the landlord to carry out a learning exercise.
  12. In his referral to this Service, the resident said he is still waiting for his son’s bedroom to be restored. The landlord’s records indicated that its insurers were dealing with this matter. Given this, the landlord is further recommended to update the resident accordingly.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord offered redress to the resident prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the landlord’s handling of reports of a leak satisfactorily.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should review the failings identified in this report to determine what action has been/will be taken to prevent a recurrence. The landlord should write to the Ombudsman with the outcome of this review.
  2. The landlord should update the resident on restoring his son’s bedroom and provide likely timescales for completion.