Notting Hill Genesis (NHG) (202310923)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202310923

Notting Hill Genesis (NHG)

24 February 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 handling of the resident’s:
1. Request to replace the electrical heating system.
2. Associated complaint.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord (a housing association), and lives in a 3-bedroom house.
In September 2020 the resident contacted the landlord to say that her heating bills were very high and that she considered her heating system was not fit for purpose. She told the landlord that due to a recent cancer diagnosis she needed to consistently heat her property but was struggling to pay the energy bills at such an excessive cost. After investigation the landlord told the resident it was not going to change the heating system to a gas supply due to the cost associated with this.
On 6 September 2022 following a heating contractor attending the property they told the landlord that the resident remained unhappy due to the cost of the electric heating system. The contractor said that despite previously being told the system would not be replaced, she had requested a new system to be installed. On 13 April 2023 the resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord stating:
1. She had been refused a replacement heating system between 2020 and 2021, but after a leak in her kitchen a contractor had attended her property and raised an issue with the system in his notes to the landlord.
2. The landlord had inspected the heating system in September 2022 and told her that it would be looking at options to replace the heating system, but she had not received any contact about this.
3. She had communicated directly with the heating contractor who said that the landlord would contact her about the situation, but this had not happened.
4. As a resolution, she wanted the landlord to pay compensation to cover the cost of the higher bills since September 2022 and replace the heating system to one that was fit for purpose.
The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 25 April 2023. On 10 May 2023 the resident chased the landlord for a response. In response, the landlord advised that it would require a 10-day extension to provide its stage 1 complaint response. On 24 May 2023 the landlord thanked the resident for her complaint, it said:
1. It could offer a “quick fix” rather than respond to a formal complaint and it was sorry to hear the resident’s heating bills were so high.
2. It had requested a heating contractor to arrange a visit to survey the resident’s property for a possible gas installation.
3. While it was unable to speak with the resident before closing the complaint it wanted to assure her that it was acting based on her request.
4. It was sorry for any inconvenience caused and if the resident was still unhappy it would investigate the case as a formal complaint.
On 5 June 2023 the resident escalated her complaint. She said that a heating contractor had called her on 30 May 2023 asking to arrange installation of an air source heat pump (ASHP). However, she had not received any information about this. She said:
1. The contractor said it would install a large pump on her garden patio and would remove floorboards from her bedrooms and landing. It would install a new airing cupboard in the large front bedroom and remove the old system from the small front bedroom. She said that this would cause a lot of disruption and that she was worried the repairs may damage her property.
2. The contractor had also said that she would be responsible for moving furniture, but due to her medical condition she would be unable to do this.
3. She was unhappy with the ASHP option due to the disruption, the efficiency of the unit and that it would be noisy. She said that after speaking with various electrical consultants and gas engineers, they had all recommended a gas installation as a cheaper and easier option.
4. She wanted compensation to cover the excessive heating bills caused by the current system.
On 29 August 2023 the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response. It provided a summary of the history of the case and said that:
1. An electrical survey had been conducted on 14 August 2023 which confirmed the current system was safe to use and had been given a “satisfactory” rating after inspection.
2. While it understood the resident wanted a gas system to be installed, this was not possible and did not sit within its current sustainability strategy to ensure a reduced carbon footprint.
3. It would be unable to compensate the resident for her energy bills as after inspection the electrical contractor had confirmed the system was safe for continued use.
4. It understood the resident did not want an ASHP due to the disruption this may cause. It noted the resident had requested a temporary move to a hotel while the ASHP works were being conducted. However, it did not offer temporary moves while replacement works were being completed unless extenuating circumstances or health risks were present or associated with the works.
5. It could still offer to install an ASHP if the resident agreed to this. It also partially upheld the resident’s complaint as its communication was lacking. Due to the inconvenience this caused it would offer £125 in compensation.
An ASHP was installed at the resident’s property on 26 October 2023. The resident referred her complaint to this Service on 18 July 2023. She was unhappy with the handling of her request for a replacement heating system and wanted compensation dating back to 2014 for her high energy bills.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

We understand the resident first reported issues with her heating system in September 2020. However, as a formal complaint was not raised until 13 April 2023, this investigation will focus on the landlord’s actions from September 2022 until the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response on 29 August 2023. This is because complaints are expected to be raised with landlords promptly so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the complaint and reach an informed conclusion.
The resident has contacted us and said she had an issue where she was without hot water for several weeks between July and October 2023. In the interest of fairness, the scope of this investigation has focussed on the issues raised during the resident’s formal complaint. This is because the landlord needs to be given an opportunity to investigate and respond to any dissatisfaction with its actions prior to our involvement. As the issue relating to the resident’s lack of hot water is a new issue that has not been subject to a formal complaint, this can be addressed directly with the landlord and progressed as a new formal complaint if needed.

Request for a replacement heating system

The landlord’s repairs policy says that routine repairs would be completed within 20 working days. It says that some repairs will require an inspection to assess the issue before the repair is arranged.
A heating contractor attended the resident’s home in September 2022 to conduct an operation check on her system. The contractor recorded that the resident was “extremely unhappy as she can’t heat her house due to the cost of the system”.
In the contractor’s notes sent to the landlord they said that the resident wanted a new system to help with the situation and that she was recovering from cancer with a low immune system. The landlord’s first response to this was positive. It arranged an inspection which took place around 29 September 2022 to look at possible solutions to resolve the resident’s issue.
However, the landlord took no action following the inspection and there was an unacceptable delay in dealing with the resident’s request. The resident had to chase the landlord on 11 January 2023 and 2 February 2023 to ask what it was doing about the heating system. The landlord did not provide an update despite telling the resident it was checking with the relevant team. This led to the resident raising a complaint on 13 April 2023.
This caused the resident significant distress and inconvenience over a 7-month period. She also took time and trouble to chase the landlord for an update before raising a complaint. The lack of urgency in dealing with her request heightened the impact on the resident. The landlord knew she was a vulnerable person who said was struggling to afford the cost of the heating system. However, it has not shown that it gave any consideration to the resident’s individual circumstances when dealing with the request between September 2022 and April 2023.
After the resident complained, the landlord’s communication about the heating system was poor. The landlord decided to survey the resident’s home for an air space heat pump (ASHP) on 10 May 2023, as it was seen as a more efficient renewable heating option. However, landlord did not tell the resident about this decision. Instead, on 24 May 2023, the landlord informed the resident that a contractor would survey the property for a possible gas installation, creating a false expectation. This caused further inconvenience for the resident.
The resident escalated her complaint on 5 June 2023. She said that on 30 May 2023, the heating contractor called about installing an ASHP, but she had not been told about this. After talking to the contractor, she was concerned about the disruption the installation would cause. And that the contractor said she would need to move furniture, which she could not do due to being registered as disabled. She said she would prefer a gas installation.
The landlord’s communication with the resident after her escalation continued to be poor. The same day as receiving the resident’s escalation it decided internally that:
1. It would not be fitting a gas boiler to the property as an electric system had a better carbon score.
2. It would not move the resident to temporary accommodation if an ASHP was to be fitted.
3. It would leave the electric system in place as the resident said she did not want an ASHP.
4. If the resident decided she did want an ASHP then this could be arranged.
The landlord did not communicate this decision to the resident until 29 August 2023. The time taken to provide this information to the resident was unreasonable. It caused the resident some further distress and inconvenience.
On 14 August 2023 the landlord arranged for an electrical contractor to attend the resident’s property and inspect the heating system. The inspection report assessed the system as “satisfactory”. The report said that the installation was “in good order and safe for continued service”.
The resident has told us that the electrical contractor had told her that the system was not safe for use and had been wired dangerously. We understand that the resident was therefore unhappy that the landlord relied on this electrical inspection. However, it was entitled to rely on this inspection when deciding what action to take. We have seen no evidence from the time which suggests that the system was not safe for use or that it had been wired dangerously.
Overall, the decision not to replace the electric heating system with a gas system due to cost and sustainability was a reasonable one. While there are obligations in the resident’s tenancy agreement to maintain the heating system, there is no obligation to install a different system. In the landlord’s 2022 to 2030 sustainability strategy one of its aims is to phase out gas heating in its homes. The landlord used its discretion and took its decision in line with its overall strategy to reduce its carbon footprint. However, it took nearly 11 months for the landlord to offer an ASHP as an alternative system. The time taken to communicate its decision to the resident was unreasonable.
In addition, the landlord said it would not offer a temporary move for the resident while it installed an ASHP unless extenuating circumstances or health risks were present or associated with the works. And that it makes reasonable requests for residents to move belongings and furniture. However, the landlord has not been able to show that it considered the resident’s health risks and disability when deciding a temporary move was not suitable.
We would expect to see some internal communication or evidence to show that the landlord considered options outside its normal procedure in this case. While the landlord’s decision may have still been the same, a failure to consider the resident’s individual circumstances was unreasonable and did not align with its own policy. This caused the resident some distress and inconvenience.
Taking the circumstances into account, the landlord’s actions amount to maladministration. The landlord did offer £125 compensation for its lack of communication, but this does not go far enough to put things right. Our remedies guidance says that where there has been a failure which had a significant impact on the resident a payment of between £600 to £1,000 is appropriate. Therefore, the landlord should make a payment of £900 in addition to the £125 already offered broken down as:
1. £400 for the distress and inconvenience caused.
2. £300 for the poor communication and time taken to deal with the matter.
3. £200 for the time and trouble caused.
The Ombudsman does not consider it fair for the landlord to cover the cost of the resident’s heating bills from September 2022 onwards. This is because even if the landlord had acted sooner, the decision not to install a gas system would likely have stayed the same. While the landlord may have been able to offer an ASHP sooner, it is likely the resident’s reasons for not agreeing to the installation would have also stayed the same. Therefore, there is an absence of evidence to say that the resident’s heating bills would have been lower if the landlord’s actions would have been different.

Handling of the resident’s complaint

The landlord’s complaint policy says that it would respond at stage 1 of its process within 10 working days and at stage 2 of its process within 20 working days. The policy also says that it may offer a “quick fix” within 2 working days of the complaint being made if it can be resolved.
The landlord unreasonably delayed its response at stage 1 of its complaint process. It took an initial 17 working days to ask for an extension of time after the resident’s complaint dated 13 April 2023. This delay caused the resident some distress and inconvenience.
On 24 May 2023 the landlord sent an email to the resident to say that it could offer a “quick fix” rather than a formal response. This did not align with its policy as it offered the quick fix 27 working days after the resident raised her complaint. This failure to follow its own complaint policy caused some further distress and inconvenience to the resident.
The landlord did not provide the resident with a stage 1 complaint response in line with its complaint policy. This was unreasonable, but it did not prevent the resident from escalating her complaint on 5 June 2023.
However, the landlord unreasonably delayed its stage 2 complaint response. It issued its response 61 working days after the resident’s escalation. We have not been provided with an explanation why. And there is no evidence to show that the landlord told the resident about this delay. This failure to respond in line with its policy caused significant distress and inconvenience to the resident.
Taking the circumstances into account, the landlord’s actions amount to maladministration. The landlord did offer £125 for a lack of communication in its stage 2 complaint response, but this is not a fair remedy for the failings identified. Our remedies guidance says that where the resident has been adversely affected a payment of between £100 to £600 would be appropriate. As there were multiple failings of a similar nature the landlord should pay compensation of £300 in addition to the £125 already offered. This is broken down as:
1. £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused.
2. £150 for the delays.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Request to replace the electrical heating system.
2. Associated complaint.

Orders

Within 4 weeks the landlord is ordered to:
1. Write an apology to the resident.
2. Pay compensation totalling £1,200 in addition to the £125 already offered broken down as:
  1. £400 for the distress and inconvenience caused relating to the replacement heating system.
  2. £300 for the poor communication and time taken relating to the replacement heating system.
  3. £200 for the time and trouble caused relating to the replacement heating system.
  4. £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling.
  5. £150 for the delays in its complaint handling.