Notting Hill Genesis (NHG) (202303248)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202303248

Notting Hill Genesis (NHG)

18 June 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak in the communal area, damp and mould, and damage caused to the resident’s property as a result.
The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s record keeping.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the property which is a 2-bedroom flat. The resident resides in the property with her daughter and grandson. The resident informed the landlord that her daughter has asthma. The landlord has confirmed that it has no recorded vulnerabilities for the household.
The resident contacted the landlord on 15 March 2023 to raise a complaint. She said she had experienced endless problems in the property due to leaks, which resulted in horrendous and inhumane living circumstances for her and her family. She outlined the following:
1. She first noticed a leak in the communal passageway which led to her front door on 29 July 2022, and she reported it to her housing officer on 9 August 2022. She said months passed without any response and when a contractor did attend, they told her not to worry and that it was rainwater. She said as the leak was not addressed, mould started to grow on the carpet, and the smell was disgusting.
2. In November 2022, there were 2 burst pipes in the communal passageway cupboards, and these were addressed by her new housing officer within weeks.
3. Due to the leaks from July to November 2022, there was water damage under the flooring in the property causing it to dip and become swollen to the point that 4 fire doors could not shut. She said the doors were removed and shaved by the landlord to regain functionality.
4. There was rising damp and severe mould on the walls, skirting boards, and personal belongings. She said she was deeply saddened by the loss of her personal belongings which were ruined. She reported the mould as very severe in her daughter and grandson’s room. She said it had been mould washed twice in the last 2 months and returned in February 2023. She said her daughter was asthmatic and her grandson had recently started wheezing since the black mould appeared.
5. Following this, there was a mould mite infestation, and the mites were everywhere, appearing from the flooring, up the walls, and across the ceiling. She said they were within several belongings which also had to be thrown away. The resident stated that pest control visited the property on 13 January 2023 to complete treatment and she outlined the difficulties in managing her 6-year-old grandson who could not go near the treated areas for 21 days. She said she was told the mould mites would return due to the damp under the flooring.
6. Surveyors had visited the property, the resident outlined what action had taken place and was yet to be completed.
7. The resident said the whole ordeal had been a living nightmare and the family was depressed due to the current circumstances. She said she should be rehoused while the required work was carried out. She said she would like compensation for the loss of her belongings due to the leaks and the full rent she had paid for the property. The resident said she had been unable to live normally in the rooms.
The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 28 March 2023 and apologised for the poor service the resident received. It confirmed the following:
1. There was no evidence of the communal leak being raised following the resident’s reports and it had led to a bigger problem due to not being addressed in time. It offered £250 for its failure to resolve the leak, £250 for the distress and inconvenience caused, and £100 for the lack of communication from the previous housing officer.
2. The landlord outlined the action taken in relation to the recurring mould. It confirmed that another mould wash was booked in, and a job had been raised for a new radiator to be installed in the daughter’s bedroom.
3. It said its policy did not compensate for damaged belongings and it encouraged residents to take out contents insurance for that reason.
4. It outlined the action taken by pest control and believed the issue was resolved.
5. It would be carrying out exploratory flooring works in the property which would start on 31 March 2023.
The resident escalated her complaint on 29 March 2023. She said she was dissatisfied with the compensation and her possessions equated to higher than that. She said the damage was caused as a result of the landlord’s lack of communication, negligence, and the leaks. She also wanted to know how the landlord would reduce the reappearance of mould. She confirmed she was happy with the response to the flooring but would need to be rehoused while the works were carried out. She said she would like her full rent compensated for the last 8 months.
The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 24 April 2023:
1. It apologised for the appearance of the black mould and that it happened largely as a result of its failure to deal with the leak. It said works had been carried out in the property to alleviate some of the condensation. It confirmed a mould wash and new radiator appointment had been booked in.
2. It reiterated that it did not cover damage to residents’ personal belongings.
3. It said that pest control had been unable to fully remove all the mites and it upheld that part of the complaint.
4. It confirmed the flooring in the kitchen had been replaced and further work needed to be done to check the other flooring. It said the works would be delayed until a 2-bedroom property could be available for a decant and it would let the resident know once one had been found.
5. It offered £1,000 compensation. £250 was for failure to repair the leak, £250 for distress and inconvenience regarding the leak, £100 for lack of communication from the housing officer, £150 for failure to remove mould mites in a timely manner, and £250 for the distress and inconvenience of the mould.
The resident remained dissatisfied and brought her complaint to the Ombudsman. She has confirmed that she would like further compensation and for the landlord to fully resolve the issue with her flooring.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s obligations

The landlord’s repairs policy states that communal repairs are carried out to entrance halls, lifts, stairways, passageways, and other parts provided for common use. It states that in cases when communal repairs would not be completed within the usual target, it will inform the resident and provide a revised timescale for completion.
The repairs policy categorises repairs as follows:
1. Emergency repairs to be attended to within 4 hours and have all major services restored within 24 hours. All further work should also be completed within 24 hours within reason.
2. Routine repairs to be completed within 20 working days from the date of reporting.
The landlord has a responsibility under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS), introduced by the Housing Act 2004, to assess hazards and risks within its rented properties. Damp and mould growth are a potential hazard and therefore the landlord is required to consider whether any mould problems in its properties amount to a hazard that may require remedy. Landlords should be aware of their obligations under HHSRS, and they are expected to carry out additional monitoring of a property where potential hazards are identified.
The landlord’s damp and mould policy states that it will visit a property within 10 days of receiving a report and at the visit, staff will determine the severity of the issue and where possible, the cause. It states it will consider any evidence of detrimental impact the damp is having on the health of the resident or anyone in the household.
The landlord’s compensation procedure states that it can compensate for right to repair, failure to provide services, loss of room or facility, and other service failures. The procedure outlines compensation figures for distress and inconvenience. It states that for low impact it suggests awarding up to £50, for medium impact up to £125, high impact is up to £250, and exceptional circumstances must be agreed by a senior manager. It confirms that a liability claim can include when personal belongings are damaged, and the claimant should be signposted to the insurance team.
The compensation procedure also refers to direct loss payments. It outlines that these payments will usually be made where there has been a service failure such as an unreasonable delay in rectifying a leak which meant damage to items happened over a longer period. It states that it should reflect the amount the resident has lost. It states the landlord should ask for evidence of the cost but it in cases where someone no longer has a receipt it should agree the reasonable cost of a similar item on a like-for-like basis. It confirms that a direct loss payment may be made in addition to a payment for distress and inconvenience.
The landlord’s pest control procedure does not specifically refer to mould mites, it states that irrespective of the pest problem, the officer should follow its procedure and intervene as soon as possible.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak in the communal area, damp and mould, and damage caused to the resident’s property as a result.

As there are several issues relating to this complaint point the Ombudsman has decided for ease of reading, to address each element under separate subheadings.

Communal leaks

The resident first reported the communal leak to the landlord on 9 August 2022 and the landlord confirmed that there was no evidence of the issue being raised. The landlord stated that the resident reported an emergency leak on 7 October 2022 and a further leak was identified on 17 October 2022. The landlord said that the leaks were resolved in October 2022, however, it did not provide any repair records to substantiate this. The resident has stated that there were further leaks identified in November 2022. While the Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s account, the landlord has not provided any evidence of it attending to leaks in November 2022 and whether they impacted the resident’s property. The Ombudsman has found that the landlord’s lack of record keeping in this case has hindered the Ombudsman’s investigation and this will be addressed later in the report.
The landlord’s repairs policy does not provide a target timescale for completing repairs to communal areas. This can cause conflict about whether a timescale is satisfactory. However, in the absence of set timeframes, the landlord had a responsibility to provide the resident with a timescale for the repairs and to keep her updated on the progress of the repair. This did not happen, and it was not appropriate that it took the landlord 3 to 4 months to resolve the leak.
Overall, it is not disputed that the delays in resolving the leaks in the communal area were not appropriate and contributed to the subsequent damage in the resident’s property. The landlord acknowledged this in its complaint responses and awarded £600 in compensation for the delays, lack of communication, and distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. The landlord also stated that it would ensure all future issues and repairs would be raised in a suitable timeframe to minimise the risk of small issues turning into larger problems. The Ombudsman finds the landlord’s offer of redress to be reasonable and in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies. A recommendation will be made for the landlord to consider updating its repairs policy to include timeframes for communal repairs.
The resident has informed the Ombudsman that there is a recent ongoing leak which may be impacting the flooring in her property. It is not known if this is related to the previous leaks or if it is new. However, an order will be made for the landlord to investigate the leak and to inspect the flooring in the resident’s property if it has not already done so.

Damage to the resident’s flooring

The resident informed the Ombudsman that she reported issues with her doors not closing a couple of weeks after she reported the communal leak in August 2022. She said the floorboards were swelling due to the communal leak and as such, the front and internal doors became difficult to close. In her formal complaint the resident said that 5 doors were removed and shaved to regain their functionality, but it is unclear when this was carried out. In its stage 1 response, the landlord stated that the resident reported the issue on 31 November 2022, which conflicts with the resident’s account. It said it then surveyed the damaged flooring and would be carrying out exploratory flooring works in the resident’s home starting 31 March 2023.
It appears that all remedial work, including replacing the flooring in the property was completed by June 2023. The resident has raised recent concerns regarding the flooring and it is currently unknown what the cause of this is. As already stated, an order will be made for the landlord to inspect the flooring in the resident’s property. However, in the absence of the repair records and the surveyor reports, the Ombudsman has been unable to determine whether the landlord’s response to the reports were reasonable, and in line with its policy.

Damp and mould

In it stage 1 response the landlord said the resident first reported black mould in her bedroom on 20 October 2022. It is unclear what action the landlord took at the time; however, it appears that a mould wash was carried out. The landlord states that a further mould wash was required in December 2022, as the mould had returned. It said it raised a job to provide a dehumidifier on 1 March 2023 and another mould wash was raised on 21 March 2023. The landlord confirmed that it had also raised a job for a new radiator and its contractor would carry out works to reduce the likelihood of black mould reappearing.
In line with its procedure and following the resident’s reports, the landlord should have investigated the cause of the damp and mould in the property. A damp and mould checklist should have also been completed. It is understood that surveys were completed in the property, however, without the reports and/or a completed checklist, it cannot be determined what consideration was given to the issue at the time, other than mould washes.
In an internal email dated 28 March 2023, the landlord referred to speaking to a damp specialist to see if more could be done to minimise the risk of damp returning. Given the repeated reports and consequent mould mite infestation, this is something that the landlord should have considered sooner.
In her formal complaint, the resident informed the landlord that her daughter was asthmatic, and her grandson had started wheezing since the black mould appeared. There is no evidence that the landlord considered its obligations under its policy or the HHSRS, and any risks posed to the household. It is also noted that despite the landlord being aware of the household vulnerabilities, its records were not updated to reflect them, which is a failing.
In its stage 2 response the landlord acknowledged that its delays in addressing the leak led to mould in the resident’s property. It offered £250 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. The actions taken to address the damp and mould such as mould washes, a dehumidifier, thermal boarding, a new radiator, and a new extractor fan were reasonable. However, up until the stage 1 response in March 2023 the only action taken in relation to the damp and mould was mould washes. The resident reported mould mites in January 2023, and this should have been sufficient evidence of a bigger issue which required urgent attention.

Mould mite infestation

The resident reported the mould mite infestation in January 2023. Pest control attended on 13 January 2023; however, they were unable to fully remove all the mites. From the information available, this was partly due to not applying treatment under the floorboards, not removing the mould mite nest on the window ledge, and not fully addressing the damp and mould in the property. While it is acknowledged that it can sometimes take more than 1 attempt to fully remove pests, the landlord’s actions appear to have also contributed to this.
The landlord acknowledged that it had been unable to fully remove the mites and offered £150 for its failure to remove them in a timely manner. While it is positive that the landlord recognised its failings, it had not considered the impact on the resident. The resident outlined the difficulties with managing her grandson around the chemicals used and the impact of having mould mites in the property. She stated that she had been unable to live normally in her home and particularly, the living room where the mites were most prominent. It is already acknowledged that the landlord did not consider the risks posed to the household. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have considered the distress and inconvenience caused as a result of its failure to fully remove the mould mites.

Damage to belongings

The resident requested compensation for the loss of her personal belongings due to the leaks. In its complaint responses, the landlord maintained that it was within its policy that it did not compensate for damaged belongings and encouraged residents to take out contents insurance for that reason. The landlord had already acknowledged that it did not do enough to address the leaks which led to the subsequent damage in the resident’s property. Therefore, its response was inappropriate and unempathetic. In line with its procedure, it should have signposted the resident to the insurance team and referred to its liability claims procedure.
The Ombudsman does not have the authority to determine liability or award damages for damaged property in the way that a court or insurer might. However, due to the time that has passed, the Ombudsman finds it reasonable to order the landlord to pay a direct loss payment to the resident. The resident has informed the Ombudsman that the cost of replacing the items damaged by mould and mould mites equated to approximately £1,600. The items included her sofas, shoes, books, the living room blinds, and a stereo system. As the landlord had the opportunity to request evidence of this at the time and did not do so, the landlord is to pay the resident £1,600, which is in line with its compensation procedure.
Overall, the Ombudsman considers that the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a communal leak and the damage caused to her property amounts to maladministration. While the landlord acknowledged some of its failures and offered compensation to put them right, it did not acknowledge all its failures. This includes all the delays in this case, the lack of risk assessment, and its inappropriate response to the damage to the resident’s belongings. This suggests the landlord did not fully understand the impact to the resident and it did not act in line with its policies and procedures. As already acknowledged, the landlord’s record keeping contributed to this and will be addressed separately.
The resident has confirmed that she received the compensation offered in the stage 2 response. While further failings have been identified, the Ombudsman finds the £1,000 compensation offered in the stage 2 response and the additional award of £1,600 for its failure to consider the resident’s request regarding damage to her belongings, is proportionate to the overall failings in this case.

The landlord’s record keeping

The landlord failed to provide the Ombudsman with all relevant information relating to this case. This included records of when the resident reported the issues, inspection reports, and repair logs, including dates and explanations of works completed at each visit. This information was requested twice by the Ombudsman and is information the landlord should have taken into account in its own consideration of the complaint. It is therefore unsatisfactory that it did not provide this information and as such, the Ombudsman could not fully assess the landlord’s actions and decision making at the time.
The Ombudsman notes that there was an initial housing officer who left the organisation which may have contributed to some of the lack of records. However, it is paramount that the landlord encourages all staff to input all communication onto its central housing system to achieve efficient record keeping. This allows the landlord to continue to provide services when unexpected incidents occur such as staff leaving.
Overall, it is of concern that the landlord was not able to provide more detailed records and cannot evidence active management of the repairs. The Ombudsman has therefore found maladministration in the landlord’s record keeping. The Ombudsman is aware of recent findings made against the landlord in which it was ordered to review and/or undertake a self-assessment of its knowledge and information management practice. Sufficient evidence has been provided from the landlord of it doing so. Therefore, no orders will be made in this case in relation to the landlord’s record keeping, however, the landlord should consider the findings highlighted and whether any further action is required.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the reports of a communal leak, damp and mould, and damage caused to the resident’s property as a result.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its record keeping.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to take the following action:
1. It must investigate any current leaks in the communal area and the flooring in the resident’s property. Once completed it must inform the resident of its findings and provide a written action plan for carrying out any repairs. The action plan should include an estimated timeframe for any works to be completed.
2. Liaise with the resident to ensure it has an accurate record of all the vulnerabilities in the household.
3. Pay the resident a total of £1,600 for its failure to consider the resident’s request for compensation in line with its procedure.
The landlord is to provide evidence of compliance with the above orders within 4 weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendation

The landlord should consider updating its repairs policy to provide further clarity regarding timescales for communal repairs.