Notting Hill Genesis (NHG) (202304281)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202304281

Notting Hill Genesis (NHG)

16 May 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the standard of the grounds maintenance and its contractor management.

Background

The resident is a leaseholder of the landlord’s property. She has lived in her 1 bedroom flat since January 2022.
In November 2022 the resident contacted the landlord about the condition of her estate’s pocket park. She said there was no proof that the contractor had carried out any maintenance to the park.
On 19 February 2023 the resident made a complaint (Complaint A) She said:
1. when she raised her concerns about the grounds maintenance in November 2022, the landlord failed to respond to her queries for 2 months.
2. the landlord should refund residents for the grounds maintenance charges for 2021 and 2022 where it could not demonstrate that the maintenance took place.
3. the landlord should provide her with the lift maintenance reports.
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 7 March 2023. It said:
1. it would provide details about the maintenance of the park by 10 March 2023.
2. it had monthly lift maintenance checks in place with its contractor.
3. in recognition of its service failure to respond to the resident’s queries in November 2022 and respond to her complaint in time, it offered £250.00 compensation.
Around 13 March 2023 the resident escalated her complaint. She said that the landlord had not updated her about the maintenance of the park as stated in its stage 1 response. She reiterated her concerns as stated in Complaint A.
The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 4 April 2023. It said:
1. it did not provide the information on the park on 10 March 2023 because it took longer to obtain than expected. It offered £50 compensation for the delay.
2. it was reviewing the records to ascertain whether a refund was due for any missed attendances by its contractor.
3. it had requested the reports for any callouts in relation to the lift, in addition to the monthly maintenance records. It would provide the information by 28 April 2023.
On 18 April 2023 the landlord told the resident that it had reviewed the grounds maintenance records for the pocket park. It would refund the costs of the service charges for 2 years, covering 2021 and 2022. The refund would be credited to the leaseholders’ service charge accounts when it reconciled the accounts for the 2022/2023 financial year. It also provided the resident with the lift call out sheets.
Around mid-May 2023, the resident asked the landlord to provide information about the contractors services in a table format. She said this would allow residents to know what they were paying for. The landlord agreed to her request.
On 27 June 2023 the resident raised a formal complaint (Complaint B). She said that the landlord had not provided the contractor information as agreed. She asked that the landlord put a system in place to “guarantee that the contractors’ work was tracked, monitored, and well executed”.
On 11 July 2023 the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response. It said its case management system allowed it to monitor the contractors’ work. It explained that contractors uploaded pictures of the outcome of its visits to the system. It would review the information and/or where necessary carry out its own inspection of the work. If it deemed that the works were satisfactorily completed it would sign off the work and pay the contractor. If the work was not satisfactory it would recall the contractor to complete the works at no additional cost.
On 13 July 2023 the resident escalated Complaint B. She said:
1. the landlord had not provided her with a table of contractor information as it stated that it would.
2. the landlord had not been aware about the non-maintenance of the park. This was evidence that it did not have a have a system in place to guarantee that the contractors’ work was tracked, monitored, and well executed.
3. the landlord should carry out monthly ground maintenance checks.
On 30 August 2023 the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response. It said:
1. it should have created the table sooner. It would be completed and sent to residents by 8 September 2023 and placed in noticeboards of all blocks by 15 September 2023.
2. it carried out regular site inspections to monitor its contractors’ performance. The service was being provided according to schedule and any identified issues were being highlighted and remedied.
It offered £50 compensation for its delayed stage 2 complaint response.
The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response. She said there were still issues with the maintenance of the pocket park and the landlord was not monitoring its contractors’ performance. She also explained that it did not provide her with all of the lift reports that she had requested.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the standard of grounds maintenance and its contractor management

The landlord’s estate management policy stated:
1. where services are contracted, it would carry out inspections on a regular basis to ensure grounds maintenance standards. It would aim to carry out inspections within a reasonable time after gardening has taken place.
2. it would raise any issues with the responsible contractor and request that it correct the failing within a specified period.
In Complaint A, the resident said that where the landlord could not evidence that the contractor had attended the pocket park as contracted, it should refund the residents the associated service charges. In response the landlord agreed to refund the grounds maintenance service charges for 2021 and 2022.
While it was reasonable for the landlord to refund the resident as requested, the basis for its decision to do so is unclear. In the circumstances, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to share details of what investigation it had undertaken to ascertain what level of service had been provided, and how it had concluded that the refund was ultimately due. Its decision to refund the charges suggests that there was a service failure in relation to its grounds maintenance provision during that period; however, with transparency in mind, the landlord should have explained how it had reached its conclusion that a refund was due. The resident has told us that she has not received the refund in her service charges. Based on the evidence it is not possible for us to ascertain why this has not been processed. However, an order has been made for the landlord to contact her discuss this matter.
Given the length of time associated with the service failure, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have reviewed its estate management practices. A review may have identified causes of the service failure. This may have gone some way to ensure that it learnt lessons that mitigated any further similar failings in the future. That it did not was a missed opportunity.
Following her concerns about the landlord’s management of its contractors, the resident asked the landlord to put a system in place that would enable it to effectively monitor its contractors. In response the landlord explained how its case management system worked. This was reasonable and provided the resident with an appropriate level of detail about its procedure.
The resident also asked the landlord to carry out monthly ground maintenance checks. In response the landlord said that it carried out regular inspections. It said that any issues identified were being highlighted and remedied. The landlord’s response went some way to explain what steps it was taking to monitor the grounds maintenance. However, it did not go far enough.
Given its previous service failure, it would have been reasonable for it to have provided the resident with further details about its recent inspections. For example, it could have included specific dates of when the inspections took place and a brief description of the outcome them. This may have gone some way to reassure the resident that it was carrying out the inspections as it said that it was. This would have also demonstrated that its responses were based on reliable and current information. That it did not meant that it missed an opportunity to show that it had learnt from its previous service failure. This caused the resident distress and inconvenience.
Furthermore, the landlord has not provided evidence that its response was based on accurate information by way of estate inspections or correspondence with its contractor. Therefore, it has not demonstrated to the Ombudsman that it was reasonably managing its contractor at the time of Complaint B. That is a further failing and suggests that the landlord has not learnt from Complaint A.
The resident has told the Ombudsman that she still has concerns about the landlord’s management of its grounds maintenance contractor. Given the resident’s continued concerns and that the evidence does not demonstrate any improvements, We have ordered the landlord to carry out review of its estate management practices in relation to its grounds maintenance provision.
In relation to the resident’s request for reports the lift maintenance reports. The evidence shows that landlord provided the resident with some call out sheets. However, it is unclear whether it provided her with the maintenance reports that she also requested. In addition, the resident has told us that it did not provide all of the reports that she had requested. Therefore, an order has been made for the landlord to contact the resident to ascertain whether it can provide her with any further reports. If it is unable to do so, it should explain to the resident the reason it cannot.
In Complaint B, the resident said that the landlord had not provided her with the details of the contractors and its visits as it had agreed. The landlord acknowledged that it should have created the table sooner. This was positive. However, the resident incurred time and trouble chasing the landlord for the information over an approximate 4 month period. Therefore, it would have been reasonable for it to have considered a financial remedy in recognition of this. That it did not was a missed opportunity to fully put matters right.
The resident has confirmed that the landlord provided the table as it stated that it would. However, since her complaint, the contractors have been replaced, and the information is now outdated. Therefore, a recommendation has been made for the landlord to contact the resident to discuss whether a new table can be created to reflect the changes.
Taking into consideration the highlighted failings in this case, we have found that there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the standard of the grounds maintenance and its contractor management. A series of orders have therefore been made to put things right.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the standard of the grounds maintenance and its contractor management.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must:
1. apologise to the resident for the failings highlighted by this investigation.
2. pay the resident £200 compensation in recognition of distress and inconvenience caused by its handling the resident’s concerns about the standard of the grounds maintenance and its contractor management.
3. pay the resident the compensation it offered in its complaint responses if it has not already done so.
4. contact the resident to discuss her concerns:
  1. that she has not received the refund for the grounds maintenance 2021 and 2022 service charges.
  2. that she has not received all of the reports that she requested in relation to the lift maintenance.
  3. about the current standard of the grounds maintenance.
Within 12 weeks of the date of this determination the landlord should carry out a review of its estate management practices. Taking into consideration the failings outlined in this report it should:
1. review whether it is regularly carrying out inspections and recording them on its system in line with its policy.
2. where it has identified issues with grounds maintenance, it is timely contacting its contractor and asking it to resolve the issue within a specified time period as per its policy.
3. if it identifies failings in the above, it should create an action plan to bring its estate management practices in line with its policy. This should be shared with the resident and the Ombudsman.

Recommendations

Within 4 weeks the landlord should contact the resident to discuss whether it can provide an updated table for its new contractors.