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

Notting Hill Genesis (NHG) (202233892)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202233892

Notting Hill Genesis (NHG)

5 September 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 request for reimbursement for damage to her carpets.

Background

  1. The resident holds an assured tenancy at the property, a 2 bedroom house. She lives at the property with her daughter who was 4 years old at the time of the complaint.
  2. The resident reported a leak from the immersion heater in the loft on 24 March 2023. The landlord attended that night to make safe the electrics and repaired the leak. The landlord visited the resident the following morning to confirm what follow on works were needed. The follow on work commenced in April 2023 and was completed in July 2023.
  3. The resident complained to the landlord on 27 March 2023 as she felt she had been treated poorly and been left without knowing what would happen next. The landlord responded at stage 1 on 12 April 2024 confirming the actions it had taken and said that the resident was responsible for insuring her own contents against damage of this type. It offered £150 compensation comprising £50 for its slightly delayed attendance to the leak and £100 for distress and inconvenience caused. It also offered to organise a carpet clean to all the affected carpets.
  4. The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s response and asked to escalate the complaint to stage 2 on 20 April 2023 on the basis that the compensation offered was not sufficient and that the landlord had not taken responsibility for the damage caused. The landlord did not receive the resident’s escalation request until 23 May 2023. It responded on 20 June 2023 and repeated that the resident should claim for any damage caused to personal belongings under a relevant contents insurance policy. It said that, in its opinion, the carpets did not require replacement and offered again to organise a carpet clean to the affected carpets. It increased its offer of compensation to £745.47 comprising £100 for the delayed attendance to the leak, £250 for distress and inconvenience and £395.47 for loss of use of the main bedroom.
  5. The resident remained unhappy with the landlord’s response and referred her complaint to this Service. In referring the matter, she said she had not made a contents insurance claim as she felt the landlord was liable for the issue. To resolve the complaint she wanted the landlord to reimburse her £540 which is the amount she spent replacing her carpets following the leak.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. The resident’s original complaint to the landlord included her dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of the repair works following the leak and a delay in replacing the front door. The resident has informed this Service that she is now satisfied with the landlord’s responses on these matters and the only remaining area of dissatisfaction is with its handling of her request for reimbursement for damage to her carpets. Therefore, this investigation has only assessed this element of her complaint.
  2. It is evident this situation has been distressing for the resident. It may help to clarify that the purpose of this investigation is not to establish if the landlord is liable for the damage caused by the leak, as this would be a matter for an insurance provider or the courts. Rather the purpose of this investigation is to determine if the landlord acted reasonably and fairly in its response to the resident’s request.

The resident’s request for reimbursement for damage to her carpets.

  1. The evidence suggests an eroded part on the immersion heater caused the leak. The resident told the landlord that she had been advised that the landlord should have completed periodic inspections of the immersion heater every 5 to 8 years with a view to prevent leaks of this kind. The resident felt the landlord was liable for the damage caused as it had not completed these checks.
  2. There is no obligation for the landlord to do so within its policies and this Service is not aware of any statutory duty for the landlord to complete periodic maintenance of this kind. The landlord did ask the resident to confirm which legal obligation she felt it had failed to meet so it could look into this further but there is no evidence of the resident responding with this information. The landlord confirmed in its stage 1 response that it did not consider any damage to the resident’s belongings was caused by negligence on its part. It is understandable that the situation was frustrating for the resident, but this investigation has found the landlord acted reasonably in its response to this matter.
  3. The resident’s tenancy agreement specifies that the resident is responsible for obtaining the appropriate level of contents insurance to protect her own personal contents. The landlord outlined this in both its stage 1 and 2 responses in response to the resident’s request for replacement carpets. It also noted that it had reminded the resident of this in 2021 when the resident was experiencing a pest control issue. The resident informed the landlord on 23 May 2023 that her insurers had rejected her claim. In its stage 2 response, the landlord offered to contact the resident’s insurer on her behalf in support of her claim and said it would reconsider her claim upon receipt of the details of the rejection. There is no evidence of the resident providing the landlord with this information. It was appropriate of the landlord to inform the resident she needed to claim against her contents insurance. The landlord acted reasonably in offering support when the resident said her claim had been rejected and in requesting evidence of the rejection before reconsidering her claim. This investigation has found that the landlord acted reasonably in its handling of the matter.
  4. The resident informed this Service that she did not make a claim against her contents insurance policy. It is recommended that the landlord provide the resident with contact details for the relevant team who can provide the support offered within its complaint responses should she decide to make a claim in the future.
  5. The landlord’s compensation policy does not allow for payments or reimbursements for items covered under contents insurance policies. It says that it may make offers up to £250 for distress and inconvenience and it may consider payments for loss of use of a room where access to the room is severely or completely limited for an unreasonable period of time.
  6. In its stage 2 response the landlord offered £250 for distress and inconvenience. It said this was for the overall impact on the resident caused by the leak within her home. It also offered £395.47 for the loss of use of one of the bedrooms while it completed the repairs. The evidence shows the landlord completed the repairs within a reasonable time and there is no evidence that the landlord considered the room was uninhabitable at any point. However, the landlord has acted reasonably in applying discretion to its compensation policy. In making this offer, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s request for an increased offer of compensation and attempted to reach an agreeable resolution while operating within the parameters of its compensation policy. The amount of compensation offered is within the range of awards set out in this Service’s remedies guidance for failures that had a significant impact on the resident. For this reason, this investigation has found that the landlord offered reasonable redress.
  7. The resident was concerned that the water that leaked through her ceiling and onto her carpet may have been contaminated by rodent faeces identified in the loft from a previous pest control issue. The landlord organised an urgent pest control attendance to clear any waste. The landlord visited the property on 24 March 2023 and confirmed in its stage 1 response that the carpet was not damaged. The landlord visited the property again on 23 May 2023 and confirmed to the resident in its stage 2 response that no visible damage or staining was evident to the carpets. However, as a goodwill gesture in both complaint responses, the landlord offered to have the affected carpets professionally cleaned. The resident accepted this offer in October 2023. The evidence shows the landlord cleaned the affected carpets twice. This investigation has found that the landlord acted reasonably in inspecting the carpets twice and offering to clean the carpets. This is considered reasonable redress in resolving the matter.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord offered reasonable redress in the handling of the resident’s request for reimbursement for damage to her carpets.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should provide the resident with contact details for the relevant team who can support the resident should she decide to make a contents insurance claim in the future.