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

Notting Hill Genesis (NHG) (202316223)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202316223

Notting Hill Genesis (NHG)

29 November 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:
    1. Issues with his property including the kitchen worktop, patio door, and dishwasher door cover.
    2. Repairs to the communal front door.
  2. The Ombudsman will also investigate the landlord’s handing of the resident’s associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident has a shared ownership lease for a new build property. He moved into the property on 31 March 2020. The landlord is a housing association.
  2. The property was constructed by a third-party developer and had a 2-year defect liability period (DLP), which ended on 18 March 2022.
  3. On 5 October 2022 the resident made a complaint to the landlord. He asked the landlord to resolve the following issues:
    1. The kitchen worktop had split.
    2. The patio door latch had broken, and there were scratches on the external frame and a hole drilled into the sofit.
    3. A screw on the dishwasher door cover had broken again after the initial repair by the landlord.
    4. The communal front door was not locking.
  4. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 19 October 2022. In its response it said:
    1. It did not agree the split worktop was a defect. The surveyor and developer had said it was due to wear and tear. It said if the resident could provide a report evidencing there was a genuine defect it would review this. It advised the resident to contact the national house building council (NHBC) to see whether he could make a claim.
    2. There was no evidence the patio door latch was broken due to an error by the developer. Its defects team had told the resident the door latch, scratches and drilled hole in the patio frame were not defects.
    3. The resident reported the dishwasher door cover was broken after the DLP had ended. Therefore it was the residents responsibility to resolve the issue.
    4. It repaired the communal front door on 11 October 2022. It agreed to adjust the timer on the second door and write to all residents asking them not to hold the door open for extended periods as it was affecting the security of the building.
    5. It was now carrying out home demonstration tours for new completions to help improve the customer journey and experience for leaseholders.
  5. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 19 October 2022. In its response it upheld its decision that the issues the resident reported were not defects. It acknowledged and apologised for the delay and poor communication It offered the resident £450 compensation, this was broken down as:
    1. £100 for correspondence delays regarding the resident’s defect claims.
    2. £100 for the service failure regarding the communal door repairs and the inconvenience caused.
    3. £250 for its complaint handling failures.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. The resident has made several complaints to the landlord. This investigation has focussed on the complaint issues the resident raised in his complaint on 11 October 2022. This investigation will investigate the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of these issues from August 2021 to the end of its formal complaint’s procedure in December 2022.
  2. The resident has raised concerns to this service that he was not able to inspect the property before moving in due to Covid restrictions. He said the snagging was completed by the landlord’s sales team, which he felt was not to a sufficient standard. This investigation cannot cover complains where the leaseholder feels they have been misled about the condition of the property and what, if any, issues or defects the landlord was aware of at the point of sale. This is because these matters can be more effectively dealt with by the courts.
  3. In his complaint the resident asked the landlord to review all the previous complaints he had made to the landlord. As these complaints had not completed the landlord’s internal complaints procedure and were made 12 months prior the resident’s complaint dated 11 October 2022, this element of the resident’s complaint is outside the scope of this investigation. 

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of issues in his property including the kitchen worktop, patio door, and dishwasher door cover

  1. During the 2 year DLP, defects raised are for the developer of the building to repair under the terms of their warranty. After that, a warranty applies to cover structural issues and faults in the design, materials, or workmanship that existed when the construction was completed but were not apparent at the time.

Kitchen worktop

  1. The resident told the landlord his worktop had split on 4 August 2021. The landlord acted appropriately by responding to the resident the following day, which is in line with its defects policy. It advised the resident it looked like wear and tear but it would investigate further. On 11 August 2021 the landlord told the resident it was referring the issue to its surveyor. The landlord acted appropriately by seeking specialist advice from a surveyor. It also referred the issue to the developer and asked a manager to review the outcome before responding to the resident. It was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the findings of the surveyor and developer.
  2. On 25 October 2021 the landlord informed the resident that it did not believe the issue was a defect. This was 58 working days after the resident had reported the issue. The landlord’s defects policy does not provide a timescale for its investigations into defects, however, its records show there was a delay in the surveyor referring the issue to the developer. There was no evidence it kept the resident updated or managed his expectations on when he should expect a response. This was not customer focused. During the defect period the resident was reliant on the landlord to pursue the developer, it failed to pursue these issues effectively on his behalf.
  3. In the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response it acknowledged and apologised for the delay. It said it felt there was no detriment to the resident as it had told him with 24 hours that it thought the issue was due to wear and tear rather than a defect, and this view was upheld.
  4. The resident told the landlord he disputed the fact that the split in the worktop was due to wear and tear and raised concerns that the worktop had not been installed correctly. This service cannot comment on the correct installation of the worktop, it can only consider if the landlord has followed its policies and procedures. The landlord’s defects policy states a defect can be a fault in a building caused by failures in workmanship that can be identified by reasonable inspection by a non-technically qualified person. The landlord had already sought advice from a surveyor and the developer and was told it was not a defect. It was therefore reasonable the landlord asked the resident to provide a specialist report evidencing there was a genuine defect.
  5. The resident told this service he provided the landlord with a fabrication manual from the manufacturers of the worktop, which included an installation guide. From the evidence provided it is unclear when the resident provided this manual to the landlord. The resident told this service it was likely after the expiry of the complaints procedure. Based on the evidence it is reasonable to conclude that the developer considered the installation of the worktop as part of the investigation in September 2021. However, as there was no evidence the landlord discussed the resident’s concerns about the installation of the worktop with the developer, a recommendation has been made for the landlord to consider reviewing this issue.

Patio door

  1. Although this service is aware the resident initially reported the issues with the patio doors to the landlord in 2020. This investigation will consider the landlord’s handling of the issues from February 2022, when the resident reported the patio door latch had snapped. This is because as time passes it becomes increasingly difficult for the landlord and this service to carry out an effective investigation. 
  2. When the resident reported his patio door latch had broken on 2 February 2022 the landlord responded to the resident within 24 hours which is in line with its defects policy. It was reasonable for the landlord to say there was insufficient evidence to treat the matter as a defect, as there was no way to prove the issue was caused by the builder when the door was fitted 2 years prior.
  3. In the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response it stated that domestic issues such as scratches and the drilled hole on the patio door frame were not classed as defects. This was in line with its defects policy which states that defects do not include items that are considered cosmetic or snags. It goes on to state that a snag includes a minor cosmetic issue that does not prevent use of the property.
  4. The landlord also highlighted that the resident signed a reservation agreement which stated post completion the landlord and the developer would not be responsible for any cosmetic issues within the property.

Dishwasher.

  1. On 21 July 2022 the resident reported that the dishwasher door cover had broken. He said the landlord’s handyman carried out a repair in 2020 and told him if it broke again he would look at replacing the door cover. On 27 July and 15 August 2022 the landlord told the resident that it would not be classed as a defect as the DLP had ended. This decision was upheld in its complaint responses.
  2. No evidence was provided to this service to show the landlord had agreed responsibility for this repair after the DLP. A leaseholder would usually be responsible for repairs after the end of the DLP. As this issue is disputed and there is no evidence to consider, it would be unfair for this service to comment on this issue further.
  3. It was reasonable the landlord provided the resident with the dishwasher model number and contact details for the manufacturer so he could seek further advice.
  4. In summary the Ombudsman understands the resident is disappointed with the quality of works to finish his flat. However, the landlord acted in line with its policies and procedures. There was evidence of delays and poor communication, which the landlord acknowledged and apologised for in its stage 2 complaint response. It offered the resident £100 compensation for the delays. This amount of compensation was in line with the landlord’s compensation and goodwill gesture procedure. The landlord also showed learning as it detailed what action it had taken to improve its service to leaseholders.
  5. Based on the above, the Ombudsman finds reasonable redress for the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of issues in his property including the kitchen worktop, patio door, and dishwasher door cover.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs to the communal front door

  1. The landlord’s repairs policy states it aims to attend emergency repairs within 4 hours and all further works should be completed within 24 hours, within reason. It states it will complete a routine repair within 20 working days from the date it was reported.
  2. The landlord’s records do not state when the resident first reported that the communal doors were not closing and locking correctly. This was a record keeping failure.
  3. On 13 July 2022 the landlord contacted the resident to say it investigated the communal doors on 8 July 2022 and found no faults. When the resident disagreed, the landlord acted appropriately by visiting the resident on 20 July 2022. It updated the resident on 21 July 2022 and said it had raised an emergency repair for the front communal door and it would check the timer on the secondary door.
  4. The landlord carried out the repair to the front communal door on 11 October 2022. This was 58 working days after the landlord had raised the repair, which was outside its target timescale for an emergency repair. The landlord failed to keep the resident updated about the repair to the communal doors. This resulted in the resident chasing an update twice in August 2022. The landlord failed to communicate effectively with the resident and manage his expectations.
  5. In the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response dated 19 October 2022 it said it would adjust the timer on the secondary communal door. It had already told the resident that it would do this in July 2022, however, the landlord has not provided any evidence it did. It was unreasonable that the landlord failed to investigate this issue for 3 months, especially as the resident raised security concerns to the building.
  6. The landlord records do not evidence that the landlord adjusted the timer on the secondary communal door. However, the resident has told this service that the issue with the secondary door was resolved.
  7. In its stage 2 complaint response the landlord acknowledged and apologised for the delay in it completing the repairs to the communal doors and for its lack of communication. It offered the resident £100 compensation. This amount of compensation was in line with the landlord’s compensation and goodwill gesture procedure.
  8. Based on the above, the Ombudsman finds reasonable redress for the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs to the communal front door.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaint

  1. The landlord operates a two-stage complaints process. The landlord states it will acknowledge a complaint within 2 working days. It will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days, and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.
  2. The resident made a complaint to the landlord on 5 October 2022. The landlord has not provided this service with any evidence it acknowledged the complaint and provided the resident with an estimated timescale for its response. There is also no evidence it contacted the resident to discuss the complaint and his desired outcome. 
  3. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 19 October 2022. Although this was 1 day outside its target timescale of 10 working days, the landlord contacted the resident to extend the deadline for its response. The landlord’s response investigated all of the resident’s complaint issues and stated what procedures it had implemented to improve its services to leaseholders.
  4. The resident asked to escalate his complaint on 7 September 2022. The landlord failed to respond to the resident, which resulted in the resident chasing an update on 27 September 2022. The landlord contacted the resident to discuss his complaint on 7 November 2022. It sent a written acknowledgment on 11 November 2022 stating it would issue its response by 28 November 2022. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 28 November 2022 which was within its agreed timescale. However, this was 58 working days after the resident asked to escalate the complaint, which is outside the landlord’s target timescale of 20 working days.
  5. In summary there was a delay in the landlord escalating the resident’s complaint and issuing its stage 2 response. There was evidence of poor communication and record keeping. However, the landlord investigated all of the issues the resident raised in his complaint and its responses were detailed and empathetic to his circumstances. It showed learning and that it wanted to put things right. In its stage 2 complaint response the landlord apologised for its complaint handling failures and offered the resident £250 compensation. This amount of compensation was in line with the landlord’s compensation and goodwill gesture procedure.
  6. Based on the above, the Ombudsman finds reasonable redress for the landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaint.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of issues with his property including the kitchen worktop, patio door, and dishwasher door cover.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs to the communal front door. 
  3. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaint.

Recommendations

  1. Our determination of reasonable redress is made on the understanding that the £450 compensation offered to the resident in the stage 2 complaint response is paid to the resident within 28 days of this report, if it has not already been paid.
  2. The landlord should consider whether to refer the issue with the kitchen worktop back to its defects team and the developer. This is due to the information the resident has provided from the manufacturers about the installation of the worktop. The landlord promised to review the issue in its complaint responses if the resident provided evidence of a genuine defect.
  3. The landlord should review its record keeping practices to ensure that all staff are accurately recording resident’s reports of communal repairs and complaints. If it has not done so already, consider implementing a knowledge and information management strategy, in line with the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on knowledge and information management.