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

Notting Hill Genesis (NHG) (202300424)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202300424

Notting Hill Genesis (NHG)

9 December 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 reports of repairs.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord, and lives in a 1 bedroom flat in a block. The landlord recorded the resident as vulnerable due to having physical and mental health conditions.
  2. The resident raised a repair to the front door on 23 August 2022, due to smashed glass. The landlord attended the same day and completed a ‘make safe’ repair. The evidence shows the landlord “rejected” a quote from its contractor for a replacement door around this time.
  3. The resident sought to raise a complaint in March 2023, from the evidence available it is unclear exactly when he complained.
  4. The resident reported a repair to the communal staircase in the property on 9 March 2023, the landlord completed a repair on 10 April 2023.
  5. The resident asked the landlord to redecorate the communal hallway on 17 April 2023. The landlord inspected and the notes reflect it decided it did not need to redecorate immediately. The landlord completed a further emergency repair to the front door on 19 April 2023.
  6. Following an intervention from this Service, the landlord issued a stage 1 complaint response on 11 May 2023. It set out when it had completed repairs to the staircase, and the front door. It advised that it was considering the resident’s request to move the heaters in the property, remove an obsolete pipe, and his request to replace the single glazed windows. It did not uphold the complaint.
  7. The resident contacted the landlord on 1 June 2023, and said the repairs listed in his complaint were “not completed”. He asked when it was going to remove the pipe from the living room. The landlord replaced the front door some time in May 2023. The exact date is unclear from the records provided. The landlord reattended to the staircase repair on 14 July 2023.
  8. Following an intervention from this Service, the landlord sent the resident its stage 2 complaint response on 5 September 2023. It set out the repairs it had completed, and said it had done a “desktop survey” of the windows and saw no evidence of a need to replace them. It said the decoration of the communal hallways had been put as a priority for its 2023/24 programme. It apologised for not reaching a “satisfactory conclusion to some of the repair issues”.
  9. The resident contacted this Service on 25 October 2023. He said he felt the property was unsafe and raised concerns about cracks in the ceiling, and an unstable floor. He said he believed the whole property needed refurbishing.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of repairs

  1. This investigation has focused on the landlord’s handling of the repairs the resident raised as part of his original complaint. since the landlord sent its final complaint response, in September 2023, the resident has raised concerns about a crack in his ceiling, unstable floors, damp and mould, and roof works including a concern about asbestos. We note the serious nature of the concerns raised by the resident. However, our Scheme sets out that we can only consider a complaint that the landlord has had the opportunity to respond to as a formal complaint.
  2. The repairs issues the resident raised after the landlord issued its final complaint response are not within the scope of this investigation. The resident may wish to raise a formal complaint about the repairs issues not covered by this investigation if he remains unhappy with the landlord handling of them. Considering the number of repairs the resident has raised concerns about following the landlord’s final complaint response, we have made a recommendation below.
  3. Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 obliges the landlord to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property. For the purpose of the Act, the windows are considered as part of the structure of the building.
  4. Landlords are required to consider the condition of properties using a risk assessment approach called the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). HHSRS does not specify any minimum standards, but it is concerned with avoiding, or minimising potential health hazards.
  5. The landlord’s repairs policy states that it will attend to emergency repairs within 4 hours. The policy states it will complete routine repairs within 20 working days. The policy states when it needs to replace windows or door it will discuss the proposed timeframe with the resident.

Repairs to the front door

  1. The evidence shows that the landlord was on notice about the repair to the front door from August 2022. The evidence indicates that the landlord made a make safe repair on the same day. This was appropriate in the circumstances and in line with the timeframes set out in its repairs policy.
  2. From the records provided, it appears the landlord sought to replace the door in August 2022, but did not agree the quote from its contractor. While the landlord was entitled to decide whether the quote was reasonable, we have seen no evidence that it was proactive in explaining its position to the resident. This caused him an inconvenience. This is evidence the landlord failed to apply the approach set out in its repairs policy.
  3. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response, of May 2023, lacked detail about its handling of the repair, which was inappropriate. While appropriate to set out when it had attended to the repairs, it did not give a meaningful assessment of its handling of the repair up to that point, or show any learning. At the time of its stage 1 response, the repair had been ongoing for 9 months. The resident was evidently unhappy at the landlord’s handling of the repair, and was inconvenienced by the landlord’s failure to address its handling of the repair. its response lacked the appropriate detail, and learning, which inconvenienced the resident.
  4. The landlord told this Service that it replaced the front door on 12 May 2023, but that it could not find the details of the repair on its system. This is a failing in the landlord’s record keeping. The landlord’s poor record keeping around this repair can reasonably be concluded to have contributed to the delay in completing the repair. It is not possible to corroborate the landlord’s claim it replaced the door on the above date, but the resident has not disputed this. It is reasonable to conclude the landlord did replace the door in May 2023. This was 9 months after it first identified it needed to replace the door, and was an unreasonable delay.
  5. While it is not reasonable to expect the landlord to complete a repair of this nature within its routine repairs timeframe, the evidence shows it failed to follow up on the issue after it rejected its contractor’s quote in August 2022, and was not proactive in communicating with the resident about the progress of the repair, which caused him an inconvenience.
  6. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response, of September 2023, also lacked learning about its handling of the issue. While it is noted the landlord offered an apology for a delay in completing “some” repairs, it was not explicit in which repairs it believed were delayed. That it did not assess its handling of the door repair in a meaningful way lacked learning. The landlord missed an opportunity to show learning, offer redress, and build trust with the resident.

Repairs to the stairs

  1. The landlord was on notice about the repair to the stairs from 9 March 2023. The landlord attended and completed a repair on 10 April 2023. This was in line with the timeframes set out in its repairs policy, and reasonable in the circumstances.
  2. The evidence shows that the repair completed in April 2023 did not resolve the issue. We have seen evidence to indicate that the banister was not properly repaired. The resident was inconvenienced by the need to raise the repair again in July 2023 order to get the landlord to complete it appropriately.
  3. The staircase repair was completed 4 months after the resident first reported the issue, and outside of the timeframe set out in its repairs policy. While it is noted the landlord initially attended within a reasonable timeframe, the evidence shows it failed to properly complete the repair on the first visit. The delay in fully completing the repair was unreasonable and caused the resident an inconvenience.

Request to replace the windows

  1. The landlord was on notice about the resident’s concern about the windows from when he made his initial complaint in March 2023. However, we have been unable to corroborate that the resident mentioned the windows at this time. This is because the landlord has not supplied evidence dating back to this date. This is a failing in the landlord’s record keeping. Considering what is reasonable in the circumstances, and what the resident has said, it is reasonable to conclude the landlord was on notice about the issue from March 2023.
  2. The evidence shows the landlord raised the repair as part of its stage 1 complaint investigation, and sought to investigate the matter. This was appropriate in the circumstances and evidence it took the resident’s concerns seriously by raising a repair. However, that the landlord did not attend to physically inspect the windows was inappropriate.
  3. The landlord set out in its stage 2 complaint response that it had completed a “desktop survey” of the windows and found no evidence they needed replacing. This was inappropriate and evidence it did not have due regard for its repair responsibilities. While it is noted photographs can be helpful in giving an initial representation of the repair, that it did not complete a physical inspection is unreasonable. This is evidence the landlord was dismissive of the resident’s concern about the repair. We are not making a determination on whether the windows needed replacing or not, as that is for the landlord to decide after an appropriate inspection. The landlord must complete a physical inspection of the windows, in line with the order set out below.

Pipe in living room

  1. As set out above, we have determined the landlord was on notice about the issue from March 2023. This is based on the information provided, and what the resident has told this Service.
  2. We have seen no evidence to indicate the landlord progressed with the repair at the time the resident reported it. This was unreasonable and a failing in its handling of the matter. The resident had described, and supplied photos, of a potential trip hazard. That the landlord was not more proactive in progressing with the repair is concerning considering the presence of a potential hazard.
  3. The resident was inconvenienced by the need to chase the landlord about the repair on 1 June 2023. The landlord’s comments in its response that it was “not a day to day repair so it will take a while to be completed” was dismissive of his concerns. This was evidently frustrating for the resident.
  4. It is not possible to determine when the landlord completed the repair, we have seen evidence of an internal email from 8 August 2023, that set out the repair was still outstanding. It is reasonable to conclude that the landlord completed it some time between 8 August 2023, and 5 September 2023 (when it set out the repair was completed in its stage 2 complaint response). What is apparent is the repair was completed outside of the timeframes in its repairs policy, and there was an unreasonable delay. The resident was inconvenienced by the delay, and experienced time and trouble of having to chase the landlord about the repair.
  5. That its stage 2 complaint response was silent on when it completed the repair is evidence the records about the repair were poor. This is further supported by the fact the landlord told this Service it could not “find details” of when the repair was completed on its systems. It is reasonable to conclude the landlord’s poor record keeping around the repair contributed to the delay in completing it.

Decoration of the communal hallway

  1. We do not seek to make a determination on whether the communal hallway needed redecorating, but have assessed the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns. The evidence shows the landlord was on notice about the resident’s request to decorate the communal hallway from 17 April 2023. The landlord gave the resident’s request due consideration and decided to add the job to its 2023/24 programme. This was reasonable in the circumstances and evidence it gave the resident’s request the appropriate consideration.
  2. The landlord used its stage 2 complaint response, of September 2023, to outline its position on the issue, and sought to reassure the resident that it would prioritise for its programme for that financial year. This was appropriate in the circumstances, and evidence it outlined its position with clarity. It is noted the resident was unhappy with its decision. However, we have determined the landlord’s actions were appropriate in the circumstances, and the issue did not impact on the resident’s use of his property.

Repairs redress

  1. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response, of September 2023, accepted that there were delays in completing “some” repairs, but did not set out which repairs it meant. This lacked transparency and learning. The landlord admitted failings in its handling of the repairs, but did not show learning about what repairs it was referring to, or how it would prevent similar failings in the future. That it admitted failings, but did not offer appropriate redress was unreasonable. It therefore missed an opportunity to put things right for the resident.
  2. Considering the failings identified above, we have determined there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the repairs. Our remedies guidance sets out that for findings of maladministration an order of compensation between £100 and £600 may be appropriate to put things right for the resident where they have been distressed and/or inconvenienced by the landlord’s errors. For the reasons set out above we have determined an order for £300 in compensation is appropriate to put things right for the resident.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints procedure. The timeframes in its procedure mirror that of our Complaint Handling Code (the Code), which sets out our Service’s expectations of a landlord’s complaint handling practices. The Code states stage 1 complaint responses must be sent within 10 working days, and stage 2 complaint responses sent within 20 working days.
  2. The resident told this Service he tried to raise a complaint about the landlord’s handling of the substantive issues of the case in March 2023. The landlord has not provided evidence dating back to this time. However, as the landlord has not disputed that the resident raised a complaint then, it is reasonable to conclude that he did. That it did not open a complaint in March 2023 was a failing in its complaint handling that inconvenienced the resident. The resident was further inconvenienced by the need to seek assistance from this Service, in April 2023, in order to get the landlord to open a stage 1complaint investigation.
  3. The landlord sent the resident its stage 1 complaint response on 11 May 2023, this 2 months after he raised the complaint. While not an excessive delay, it did not acknowledge or apologise for the delay in its response, which was inappropriate. The resident experienced an inconvenience of a delayed complaint response without appropriate recognition, or redress.
  4. The resident expressed clear dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of the substantive issues in his complaint on 1 June 2023. It is noted the resident did not explicitly ask it to escalate his complaint. However, that the landlord did not open a stage 2 complaint at this stage was unreasonable, and a failing in its complaint handling. The Code states that “If all or part of the complaint is not resolved to the resident’s satisfaction at stage 1, it must be progressed to stage 2”. That it did not do so is evidence it operated an obstructive complaints process that was inconvenient to the resident.
  5. The resident was further inconvenienced by the need to seek assistance from this Service, in August 2023, in order to get the landlord to open a stage 2 complaint investigation.
  6. The landlord sent the resident its stage 2 complaint response on 5 September 2023. While it is noted that this was within timeframe set out in our correspondence in August 2023, its response was 3 months after the resident expressed dissatisfaction with its ongoing handling of the issues in the complaint. That the landlord did not acknowledge the protracted complaints process the resident experienced was inappropriate. Given the above failings, we have determined there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. In line with our remedies guidance, as set out above, an order for £100 is considered appropriate to put things right for the resident in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling errors.

 

 

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

  1. Within 6 weeks the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Apologise to the resident in writing for the failings identified in this report. The apology should be in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on apologies, available on our website.
    2. Pay the resident £400 in compensation, made up of:
      1. £300 in recognition of the inconvenience, time and trouble caused by errors in its handling of the resident’s reports of repairs.
      2. £100 in recognition of the inconvenience, time and trouble caused by errors in its complaint handling.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended the landlord open a new complaint investigation into the resident’s concerns about its handling of repairs raised (including asbestos removal) after it issued its final complaint response in September 2023.