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

Notting Hill Genesis (NHG) (202234742)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202234742

Notting Hill Genesis (NHG)

11 March 2025


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 repairs to a communal gate.
  2. We have also assessed the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident has been a tenant of the landlord at the property since 2012. The property is a 1 bedroom ground floor flat. It has a shared entrance with 1 other flat, which is accessed through a secure electronic gate using a fob. The resident has a spinal condition which affects her mobility.
  2. On or around 14 February 2023, the resident reported that the gate had become too heavy to comfortably open and shut. The landlord raised a repair to a contractor.
  3. The resident made a complaint to the landlord on 10 April 2023. She complained that the landlord had not repaired the gate. She described the gate as dangerous due to “the weight and pressure of the gate slamming on you as you enter and exit”.
  4. On 1 May 2023, the resident made a second complaint to the landlord. She said that she had not received a response to her previous complaint. She said the gate had now been broken for 3 months and she had repeatedly chased the landlord for an update.
  5. We wrote to the landlord on the resident’s behalf on 3 July 2023 and asked it to respond to her complaint. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 4 July 2023. It said that:
    1. The member of staff dealing with the gate repair had been off sick, leading to it not being followed up on.
    2. Its contractor had attended in May, resolved the issue with the weight of the gate and indicated it was in working order.
    3. It had since visited the block and found that the gate was not self closing as it should. Its contractor had reattended and ordered a new closer.
    4. It normally aimed to resolve repairs within 20 days, but this was not applicable because of the need to order parts.
    5. It would provide feedback to its contractor about its communication and supply the resident with weekly updates until the gate was repaired.
  6. The resident asked to escalate her complaint to stage 2 the same day. She said she was not happy for the landlord to close her complaint whilst the repair was still outstanding.
  7. We wrote to the landlord again on 16 August 2023. We asked it to provide its stage 2 response to the resident’s complaint. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 26 August 2023. It:
    1. Acknowledged that the time taken for repairs was excessive and that these were still not fully complete.
    2. Apologised for the delays, which it said were due to having to order parts and its contractor missing appointments.
    3. Said that it understood all repairs were now complete apart from moving the handle from the outside to the inside of the gate.
    4. Said it was also considering automating the gate to make it self opening.
    5. Offered the resident £150 compensation for delays and lack of communication and a further £50 for the delay in its stage 2 complaint response.
    6. Said it would continue to provide her with weekly updates until all repairs were completed.
  8. On 13 April 2024, the resident asked us to investigate her complaint. She said the gate was still too heavy and causing her discomfort to use.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. When bringing her complaint to us, the resident also expressed dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of repairs to a communal door and a window in her property. These matters did not form part of this complaint, and we have seen no evidence that the landlord has had the opportunity to address them within its internal complaints procedure. As such, they will not form part of this investigation. If the resident remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of repairs to the communal door and window, she may wish to raise a new complaint with it about this.

Gate repairs

  1. The landlord’s repair logs show it first raised a repair for the communal gate on 14 February 2023. Its records indicate its contractor attended on 23 February 2023. The contractor ordered parts which it said were due to arrive by 27 February 2023.
  2. On 7 March 2023, the resident emailed the landlord for an update on the repair. The landlord told her that its contractor had ordered parts which were due to arrive on 14 March 2023. The landlord has not given any explanation for the delay in the parts arriving.
  3. The resident emailed the landlord again on 14 March 2023. She asked whether its contractor had scheduled the repair now that the parts should have arrived. The landlord said it would chase this up with the contractor. It has not provided any evidence that it did so, despite the resident emailing again on 16 March 2023 to advise the gate had injured a delivery worker. The landlord’s failure to follow up with the contractor the repair may have been due to the staff sickness it referred to it in its stage 1 response. However, it is reasonable to expect landlords to have robust processes in place to ensure that staff absence does not have a detrimental effect on their services.
  4. The landlord’s records show that on 9 April 2023, its contractor told it that it would be attending to the gate on 12 April 2023. There is no evidence that the landlord informed the resident of this. She made her complaint the following day. There is no evidence within the landlord’s records that the contractor attended on 12 April 2023 as it had said it would.
  5. On 19 May 2023, the landlord told the resident that its contractor would be attending on 22 May 2023. In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord said that the contractor had attended in May and “resolved the heaviness issue”. However, the landlord said that following this it had identified that the gate was not self closing as it should and raised a further repair. The landlord’s records reflect this and show a repair logged on 5 June 2023 for the gate hinge.
  6. The landlord’s contractor attended on 7 June 2023. It found that the gate’s closer was missing. In its stage 1 response, dated 4 July 2023, the landlord said its contractor had ordered a replacement and was awaiting quotes. However, an email from the contractor to the landlord, dated 28 June 2023, indicates that it had provided a quote for the closer which the landlord was yet to approve.
  7. When chasing the repair, the landlord confused the reference number for the repair to the closer (raised on 5 June 2023) with the reference for a duplicate repair (raised on 14 June 2023) for the same issue. On 13 July 2023, it asked the contractor to attend to the duplicate repair “as a matter of urgency”. It is unclear whether the landlord ever approved the contractor’s quote for the original repair.
  8. On 14 July 2023, the resident told the landlord the contractor had attended the previous evening and carried out works to the gate. This had left her unable to open the gate at all. The landlord appropriately raised an emergency repair to the contractor. The landlord’s records indicate the contractor attended the same day. There are no notes detailing what it did, but it appears it made the gate operational again.
  9. The contractor attended again on 21 July 2023. It diagnosed that the gate needed a new closer, which it had already established back on 7 June 2023 and provided the landlord with a quote for. The landlord’s records show that the contractor returned and completed the works on 17 August 2023.
  10. In its stage 2 complaint response, issued 9 days later, the landlord said the resident had told it all repairs had been completed apart from moving the handle from the outside of the gate to the inside. Whilst it is apparent the resident experienced further issues with the gate, which are still not resolved to her satisfaction, the next repair in the landlord’s records was not logged until 7 November 2023. This was over 2 months after the stage 2 response and so is outside of the scope of this investigation.
  11. In total, the landlord took over 6 months to resolve the issues with the gate – although we note the resident remains dissatisfied with it. Its repairs policy says that it aims to have routine repairs completed within 20 working days of receiving a report. Whilst some of the delay was unavoidable due to the need to order parts, the landlord and its contractor’s failed to effectively communicate with the resident and each other about the repairs, leading to duplication, wasted visits and delays in ordering parts.
  12. In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord offered the resident £150 compensation for the delays and its poor communication with her. When considering what is fair in the circumstances of the case, we must assess the impact on the resident of the delays to the repair. Although the gate is a communal one, the resident must use it each time she enters or exits the property. She advised the landlord on 27 February 2023 that she had a spinal condition, and the heaviness of the door was causing her difficulty.
  13. Although the issue with the weight of the door appears to have been resolved in May 2023, this was still 3 months after the resident reported it. The impact of the closer not functioning following this can be said to be lower. It is unlikely it caused the same level of physical strain for the resident when using the gate. However, she still expended time and trouble in pursuing this over several further months. She also experienced distress and inconvenience in being trapped in the property on 14 July 2023 due to the contractor’s repair.
  14. The landlord’s compensation policy allows it to award up to £250 for high impact failures. It defines this as where “there has been a serious failure in service delivery over a period of time which has caused a significant level of distress and inconvenience to the resident”. It is our view that the upper figure of £250 would represent appropriate redress for the level of failure and duration of delay in this case. Therefore, we make a finding of service failure and order compensation of £100 in addition to the £150 the landlord offered at stage 2.

Complaint handling

  1. The resident first made a complaint to the landlord on 10 April 2023. The landlord closed the complaint down as a ‘quick fix’ the following day. It told the resident that it had passed the issue to the relevant team to follow up and resolve.
  2. The landlord’s complaints policy says that “In some instances, you may be able to provide a Quick Fix to complaints without the need for a formal response”. However, it continues that a quick fix can only be provided where “the issue is fully resolved – for a repair this means the repair has been carried out, not just that an appointment has been booked”. Based upon this, it was inappropriate for the landlord to close the resident’s complaint, and it should have provided a stage 1 response instead.
  3. The resident made a second complaint on 1 May 2023. The resident has provided evidence that the landlord initially also closed this as a quick fix. This was again inappropriate. Especially as the resident had told it in an email on 4 May 2023 that she did not want the complaint closed whilst the repair issue was ongoing.
  4. We note that since this complaint, the landlord has updated its complaints policy. The current version of its policy requires every complaint to receive a stage 1 response, with all references to ‘quick fixes’ removed.
  5. The landlord closing her complaints led the resident to contact us. We wrote to the landlord on 3 July 2023 and asked it to provide a stage 1 response to her complaint. Whilst the landlord promptly provided this on 4 July 2023, this was 58 working days after she logged her first complaint and 43 working days after she logged her second. The landlord’s complaints procedure says it will send its stage 1 response within 10 working days of receiving a complaint. The landlord failed to acknowledge the delay, or the fact it had inappropriately closed her complaints, in its stage 1 response.
  6. The resident asked to escalate her complaint to stage 2 on 4 July 2023 as she did not want it closed whilst the gate repair was still outstanding. On 6 July 2023, the landlord advised her that it could leave the complaint open at stage 1 for 3 months for ‘monitoring’. However, the resident repeated her request to escalate to stage 2, which the landlord acknowledged.
  7. The resident contacted us again on 16 August 2023. She said the landlord had still not provided her stage 2 response. We wrote to the landlord the same day asking it to do so. The landlord then provided its stage 2 response on 26 August 2023. This was 37 working days from the resident’s confirmation that she wished to escalate her complaint on 6 July 2023.
  8. The landlord’s complaints procedure says that it will provide its stage 2 complaint response within 20 working days of receiving an escalation request. In its stage 2 response, the landlord acknowledged this delay and offered the resident £50 compensation. This was a reasonable offer considering the duration of the delay and was in keeping with our remedies guidance for instances of service failure.
  9. However, the landlord failed to identify that it had inappropriately closed the resident’s complaint as a quick fix on 2 occasions. This caused her considerable time and trouble in contacting us and led to an unreasonable delay in it providing her stage 1 complaint response. Due to this, we make a finding of maladministration and order a further £100 compensation.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of gate repairs.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaints handling.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, we order the landlord to:
    1. Pay the resident £400 compensation composed of:
      1. The £150 it offered for its handling gate repairs in its stage 2 complaint response.
      2. A further £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused the service failure by its handling of gate repairs.
      3. The £50 offered in its stage 2 complaint response for the delay in providing said response.
      4. A further £100 for the time and trouble caused by the maladministration in its complaint handling.
    2. Apologise to the resident for the failings identified by this investigation.
    3. Contact the resident to discuss any outstanding issues with the gate and log any inspections/repairs as required.
  2. The landlord should provide evidence of its compliance with these orders to us.