Notting Hill Genesis (NHG) (202314025)
REPORT
COMPLAINT 202314025
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 reports of leaks and a request to repair damage caused by the leaks.
Background
- The resident is a shared owner and holds an underlease with the landlord (a housing association). He lives in a 1-bedroom basement floor flat.
- The headlease is made between the landlord and the freeholder, and the freeholder engages a management agent to deal with repairs.
- The resident first notified the landlord about a leak coming into his flat in February 2023. On 4 April 2023 the resident raised a formal complaint about delays in fixing the leak and the damage it had caused to areas of his home. The landlord issued a stage 1 complaint response on 19 April 2023, it said:
- Responsibility for communal repairs sits with the freeholder and their management agent. Responsibility for repairs within a property sits with the leaseholder of a flat. However, it accepted that the leak may have been fixed sooner had it raised the issue with the upstairs neighbour who was also a shared owner of the landlord.
- It understood that the leak had been fixed and that the management agent had agreed to make good some damage to the resident’s property. It had asked the management company to supply its buildings insurance in case this company did not agree to cover the full works.
- To recognise its own failings, it would offer a total of £227 compensation, broken down as:
- £125 compensation as it could have responded in a timelier manner and better advised on leaseholder rights and obligations.
- £102 to cover a plumber’s invoice that the resident had paid.
- On 4 July 2023 the management agent advised that it had yet to be satisfied the leak was fully fixed and it was investigating with the neighbouring flats to identify where a leak may have been coming from. On 27 July 2023 the resident requested an escalation of his complaint. On 1 September 2023 the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response, it said:
- Under the terms of the lease responsibility for the maintenance of communal pipes and repairs sits with the management agent appointed by the freeholder.
- It had submitted a formal complaint to the management agent on the resident’s behalf and was awaiting a response.
- Under the terms of the resident’s lease the landlord was obliged to use ‘reasonable endeavours’ to ensure the freeholder and management agent complied with their obligations. The landlord believed that it had acted reasonably in this regard.
- While it had fulfilled its legal obligations related to the repairs, its communication about the issue had fell below a reasonable standard. It had not provided prompt responses to emails in April and May 2023, and had failed to provide frequent updates on repairs in June and July 2023.
- To acknowledge the communication failings, it would offer compensation of £375. It would offer a further £125 for a delayed response to the escalation request. Therefore, a total of £500 in addition to the £227 was offered as a resolution to the complaint.
- It would also follow up to ensure it received a response from the management agent to the formal complaint it had raised on 16 August 2023. It would also continue to advocate on the resident’s behalf and support him for any damage claims made via the building insurance.
- The management agent confirmed to the landlord that it had found and repaired the leak on 1 September 2023. The management agent agreed to conduct repairs via its building insurance.
- The resident referred his complaint to this Service on 4 September 2023. He requested compensation totalling £687 per month to refund his rent from February 2023, until repairs were completed. To cover the cost of alternative accommodation from February 2023 onward and to complete all outstanding repairs.
Assessment and findings
Scope of Investigation
- It is noted that the resident was unhappy, in part, with the management agent’s action or inaction during the time of his complaint. However, neither the freeholder nor the management agent are members of the Scheme. Therefore, this investigation has focussed on the landlord’s actions in line with relevant obligations up to its stage 2 complaint response dated 1 September 2023.
Reports of leaks and request to repair damage
- The underlease held by the resident says that he is responsible for repairs within his property. The headlease says that the freeholder, via its management agent, is responsible for maintaining common parts, communal areas, and the structure of the building.
- Although the freeholder of the building is ultimately responsible for conducting certain repairs, the landlord has a role to ensure that such repairs are completed. In this Service’s spotlight report from March 2022 dealing with landlord’s engagement with private freeholders and managing agents, it says that the landlord should demonstrate that it is regularly communicating with the freeholder or management agent to ensure the repairs progress and provide the resident with any updates.
- The resident first reported a leak entering his property on 20 February 2023. He advised the landlord that he was unsure where the leak was coming from. The landlord responded the same day and said that it had reported the issue to the management agent who would deal with this repair. Following this, the management agent contacted the resident directly on 23 February 2023 and said that it had contacted the flat above as this was where the leak was believed to be coming from. This initial action by the landlord was reasonable as it promptly reported the repair to the management agent after the resident’s initial report.
- Between 23 February and 20 March 2023, the management agent communicated directly with the resident about the leak and damage to the resident’s property. On 20 March 2023 the management agent advised the resident it had contacted the landlord on 15 March 2023 to request access so it could obtain a quote for the damage caused by the leak. On 23 March 2023 the resident contacted the landlord to relay what the management agent had told him and chased for an update on 4 April 2023. The landlord responded the same day and apologised for the delayed response. It said that it had contacted the management agent about the repairing the damage at the resident’s property.
- While the management agent and resident were communicating directly with each other, this did not remove the landlord’s responsibility to proactively manage the repair to ensure that the management agent was fulfilling its responsibilities. The expectation is that the landlord should take ownership for getting clear updates and action from managing agents and/or freeholders. Therefore, its failure to do so between 23 February 2023 and 4 April 2023 was unreasonable. This caused unnecessary inconvenience for the resident as he was left to chase the management agent and landlord himself.
- Between 12 April and 24 April 2023, the landlord took a more proactive role in managing the damage caused by the leak. It liaised directly with the management agent to arrange for a contractor to attend the resident’s property to assess the damage. After the contractor attended the resident’s property on 17 April 2023, the landlord contacted the resident to ask how the appointment had gone and confirmed it was chasing the management agent for an update. It then requested photos from the resident to pass on to the management agent and on 24 April 2023 advised the resident the management agent wanted to attend the resident’s property on 28 April 2023 to progress the repairs. During this 2-week period the landlord’s actions were reasonable as it held the management agent to account and provided updates regularly to the resident.
- The resident advised the landlord on 24 April 2023 that he would not be available for the 28 April 2023 appointment. Following this, the resident chased the landlord for an update on 28 April, 5 and 15 May 2023 before receiving a response. In its reply to the resident on 15 May 2023 the landlord said that it had passed the photos to the management agent and was awaiting a response regarding the damage caused. The resident then chased the landlord a further 3 times on 15 June, 19 June and 3 July 2023, before the landlord provided an update on 4 July 2023.
- While the Ombudsman understands that the landlord was reliant on the responsiveness of the management agent, it should still have ensured that the resident was regularly and proactively updated. The failure to take a more proactive approach in updating the resident was unreasonable. This caused the resident some unnecessary distress and inconvenience in having to chase the landlord multiple times to find out the status of the repairs.
- On 4 July 2023 the landlord advised the resident it had last received an update from the management agent on 19 June 2023. In this update, the management agent had said that it was still investigating the source of the leak to ensure a permanent fix had been applied. The landlord told the resident on 7 July 2023 that it was awaiting a response from the management agent and would provide an update “soon”.
- Following this the landlord chased the management agent several times to find out the status of the leak repair. However, it did not update the resident until 8 August 2023 after the resident had chased the landlord and requested an escalation of his formal complaint. This again shows that while the landlord was managing its contact with the management agent, it failed to regularly communicate with the resident. As a result, the resident became frustrated and was left to chase for an update himself. This was unreasonable and continued a pattern of poor communication with the resident about the repairs that started in February 2023.
- On 11 August 2023 the resident told the landlord that the water leak had returned. This information was passed on to the management agent by the landlord the same day. The landlord then contacted the resident to say that the management agent’s contractor would be in touch about the repair. The landlord updated the resident on 15 August 2023 to advise that the management agent had raised an insurance claim related to the damages to “carpets, wood and paint”. It also arranged for a home visit to take place the following day by its own team to conduct a report on any damp within the property.
- These actions were reasonable and showed a proactive approach at managing the outstanding repairs. By arranging its own home visit, it ensured that it had its own evidence available to challenge the management agent if required. This was a positive step in being able to hold the management agent, and if needed the freeholder, to account.
- Following the home visit on 16 August 2023, the landlord told the resident it had passed on information that 2 other flats had also reported leaks coming through to their apartments. It confirmed that the management agent had gone to inspect the other flats with a view to permanently fixing the issue. The landlord also arranged for the management agent to deliver a dehumidifier to the resident’s property to attempt to dry out the affected areas. This would enable repair works to the damage to take place. It also told the resident that it had raised a formal complaint directly with the management agent in relation to the time taken to carry out the repairs. The steps taken by the landlord continued to show a proactive in holding the management agent accountable for fulfilling its responsibility.
- The landlord’s actions between 22 August and 1 September 2023 were reasonable and in line with its responsibilities. It received a response to the formal complaint against the management agent on 22 August 2023 and relayed the information from this response to the resident. It continued to liaise with the management agent and the resident about the leak repair between 22 August and 1 September 2023. The leak was confirmed as fixed by the management agent on 1 September 2023.
- Following the repair to the leak the landlord confirmed with the management agent that a claim had been made and accepted against the freeholder’s building insurance policy. The resident was informed that the management agent would deal with the damage repairs and that the landlord would continue to advocate on the resident’s behalf. This continued to show that the landlord was proactive in helping the resident claim for damage to his property.
- To summarise, this Service’s spotlight report on landlords’ engagement with private freeholders and managing agents from March 2022 identified that the landlord is responsible for liaising with the freeholder or managing agent as required and is responsible for ensuring it holds them accountable for fulfilling their obligations and responsibilities.
- In this case, the leak was quickly identified as the freeholder’s responsibility, and the landlord promptly contacted the management agent to report the leak. Following this, while the landlord generally pursued the management agent proactively to ensure the work was being completed, it failed to keep the resident regularly updated on the progress of the leak repair and how the damage caused by the leak was being dealt with. This communication only improved after the resident escalated his formal complaint on 8 August 2023.
- However, the landlord did recognise its communication fell below a reasonable standard, within its complaint process and offered redress totalling £500. This was in addition to the £227 offered for the delay in responding to the complaint escalation and to cover the resident’s plumber’s invoice.
- The Ombudsman has considered the resident’s request for a rent refund from February 2023, compensation to cover future rent costs and payment to cover alternative accommodation. However, this would not be considered a fair remedy in the circumstances of this case. This is because the landlord reported the repair to the management agent promptly and proactively chased the management agent to complete the work. Any delays in fixing the leak or completing repairs related to the damaged caused were outside of the landlord’s control.
- This Service’s remedies guidance says that where there has been maladministration but no permanent impact to the resident a payment of between £100 to £600 is appropriate. Therefore, as the landlord recognised its failings, apologised, offered redress within this range and committed to support the resident with the insurance claim, the Ombudsman considers this to be reasonable redress.
Determination
- In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Scheme, the Ombudsman finds there was reasonable redress in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of leaks and a request to repair damage caused by the leaks
Recommendations
- If it has not already done so, the landlord should pay the resident £727 compensation which it offered as part of its stage 1 and stage 2 complaint responses.