Notting Hill Genesis (NHG) (202334356)

A blue and grey text

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202334356

Notting Hill Genesis (NHG)

31 October 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 response to the resident’s reports of:
1. Repairs in the property including damp and mould.
2. Poor communication about repairs and appointments.
3. A pest infestation in the property.
The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

The resident lives in a 1-bed flat on the second floor of a terraced house that is owned and managed by the landlord. The property was let under an assured tenancy agreement in December 2003. The landlord does not record any vulnerabilities for the resident.
In or around May 2023, the resident reported damp and mould issues to the landlord. This included concerns about water ingress, rendering, insulation, and the boiler. As will become clear in the assessment of this report, it is unknown whether these issues were related to, or impacted on, the damp and mould.
This Service raised a stage 1 complaint on behalf of the resident on 4 January 2024. We asked the landlord to respond to the resident by 24 January 2024 about its handling of:
1. outstanding repairs in the property
2. costs the resident had incurred for using air circulation and heating equipment in the property
3. the resident’s concerns about its communication about repairs and appointments
The landlord sent a stage 1 response to the resident on 19 January 2024 in which it said:
1. the resident had reported repairs in May 2023, but its property inspection referral had been missing information and was not picked up until July 2023
2. it had arranged an inspection to take place on 29 August 2023 which the resident cancelled and it did not contact the resident about the inspection again until November 2023
3. it had a challenging conversation with the resident in November 2023, resulting in the case being reassigned to another staff member. Additional attempts to book an inspection were also unsuccessful
4. it would provide a works specification and a repair timeline when it had inspected the property. It would consider issuing compensation and reimbursing any incurred costs when it had completed the repairs
5. it recognised that there had been significant delays in the assessment of the property which it apologised for. It also offered a compensation award of £50 for delays it recognised in issuing the complaint response
6. it upheld the complaint and advised the resident that she could escalate the complaint within 20 workings days if she was dissatisfied with the response
The resident escalated the complaint on 5 February 2024. She said she was not happy with its lack of contact about the repairs she had been reporting for nearly a year, the landlord had ignored the associated health and safety issues and had failed to call her back. She also said it was unacceptable for it to ignore her requests and insulting to offer her £50 as compensation.
The landlord sent a stage 2 response to the resident on 31 May 2024. It said:
1. there had been staff changes and delays in resolving the repairs in the property. It had not actively supported the resident to resolve matters
2. the resident should have been able to expect the landlord to act promptly and resolve the issues when she had reported them. It should have recorded information so that staff changes did not affect its service
3. a surveyor had tried to arrange an inspection but this failed due to a communication breakdown. A different surveyor had been unable to arrange an inspection due to the resident’s working hours.
4. the repairs had become the subject of a disrepair claim and so it had to leave the progression of the complaint to its disrepair team. It was working towards resolution and had booked an inspection for 4 June 2024
5. it apologised that the resident had experienced frustration, had raised a complaint, and had escalated the matter to this Service and to her solicitors
6. it was unable to trace a request for a refund of any costs the resident had incurred for the increased costs of air circulation and heating equipment. It would consider reimbursing the resident if she resent the information
7. it acknowledged that its communication and its handling of the complaint were inadequate and apologised for the frustration, time, and trouble chasing the landlord had caused to the resident.
8. it offered the resident £775 made up as follows:
  1. £200 for its delay in resolving repairs
  2. £100 for the time it had taken to respond to the issues she had raised
  3. £325 for the impact of its communication failings
  4. £150 for the complaint handling failings it had identified
The resident appointed a solicitor in March 2024. There is no evidence that legal proceedings have been issued. This Service wrote to the resident on 1 July 2024 to acknowledge her request for us to investigate the complaint.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

During the course of this complaint the resident raised an additional complaint with the landlord on 4 April 2024 about the arrangements it had made to complete a gas safety inspection. The landlord registered the complaint under a new complaint reference number and issued a final stage 2 response to the resident on 9 April 2024. However as the complaints are separate, this Service will assess the additional complaint under reference 202426543.
The landlord noted on its housing database on 24 May 2023 that the resident had referred to historical property repairs going back to 2003. The Ombudsman encourages residents to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner, so that they have a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues while they are still ‘live,’ and while the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events which occurred. This Service does not consider complaints that were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, which would normally be within 12 months of the matters arising. In view of the time periods involved in this case this assessment does not consider any specific events before 2022. The historical issues provide contextual background to the current complaint, but the assessment is focused on the landlord’s actions in responding to the recent events and, specifically, to the complaint the resident made in January 2024.
In a letter the resident’s solicitor sent to the landlord on 13 March 2024 they said that the resident had experienced low mood and depression and had experienced panic attacks for the first time. The Ombudsman does not doubt that the resident suffered panic attacks and low mood. However, it would be difficult for the Ombudsman to conclude whether this was caused by the landlord’s actions or omissions. Often, when there is a dispute over whether someone has been injured or a health condition has been made worse, the courts are best placed to deal with this as a personal injury claim. They will have the benefit of an independent medical expert that will set out the cause of any injury or deterioration of a condition. For this reason, it would be fairer, more reasonable, and more effective for the resident to seek a remedy via the court. If the resident wishes to pursue this matter, she should seek independent legal advice. We have considered whether the landlord’s actions or inactions likely caused any distress and inconvenience to the resident.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of repairs in the property including damp and mould.

The resident’s reports centred around the damp and mould, but also included, faulty windows, water ingress, the condition of the rendering and a lack of insulation. As part of the landlord’s handling of the damp and mould and repairs, the Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s communication.
The resident reported repairs to the landlord on an undisclosed date in May 2023. It is unclear what repairs were reported specifically at the time. The final response letter states that the housing officer referred the matter to the surveying team in May 2023. It is not appropriate that the landlord has not been able to identify when the repair issues were first reported.
On 24 May 2023 the landlord noted on its housing database that the resident had reported damp and mould in the bathroom, living room, and bedroom in the property. When a repair or potential hazard is reported, a landlord should first inspect the property within a reasonable time, to determine whether there are repairs which it is responsible for and set a scope of works. The landlord raised a works order 5 working days later on 31 May 2023. Whilst this is in keeping with its 20 working day repairs policy timescales for a surveyor to inspect the property, the Ombudsman cannot say this is reasonable overall as we do not know when the repair issues were first reported in 2023. It was nevertheless appropriate for the landlord to have arranged for an assessment of the property by a suitably qualified operative, who could set out a scope of works based on the reports made.
The survey found:
1. there were damp spots and peeling paper and paint in the property
2. there were airbricks in the living room
3. no airbricks or vents were blocked
4. the bathroom and kitchen extractor fans were working
This Service has seen clear evidence of mould in the property, which affected the window frames and walls. There is staining on the walls. It is therefore clear that the surveyor inspected what the resident had reported. The survey does not offer any reason for this nor suggest any further exploratory works. Following this, the landlord’s internal records indicate that it could not carry out a ‘desk top assessment’ as there was ‘not enough information.’ It is not clear why the landlord had to carry out a desktop assessment when it had completed a visual inspection of the property in May 2023. It had evidence and was on notice that there was damp and mould in the property.
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. Mould growth is a potential hazard, and the landlord was required to consider whether damp and mould amounted to a hazard and required remedying. There is no evidence it acted promptly to order any works or carry out further exploratory works at this time.
The landlord’s records show that the resident chased the landlord on 17 July 2023. This was around 2 months after the housing officer had referred the matter to its surveying team. Its records also show that the resident contacted it about the boiler on 20 July 2023. It is not clear from those records whether the boiler was in working order at that time and how that would have been impacting on the damp and mould.
The next record is dated 25 July 2023, which states the landlord advised the resident that it would arrange for a damp and mould inspection after 7 August 2023, when the staff member had returned from annual leave. This was not appropriate on the basis that the landlord had been on notice of the damp and mould in the property since at least May 2023 and had inspected once already.
The landlord contacted the resident on 1 August 2023, to apologise for the delay in the property being inspected. The notice states the surveyor was on leave and this would be ‘picked up with them next week.’ The evidence indicates that an appointment had been booked for 29 August 2023, but that the resident had to reschedule. There is no evidence that this was raised again until 24 October 2023, some 2 months later.
On 17 November 2023, the resident expressed concerns about the condition of the windows, which she described as rotten and dangerous. On the same day the landlord noted that the property was in a terrible state with damp walls, rotten window frames, and a heating issue. The tenancy agreement and the landlord’s repairs policy state that it was responsible for the maintenance of windows in the property. Furthermore it categorises an event that threatens the safety and security of a resident (such as a faulty or broken windows) as an emergency repair that should be responded to within 24 hours. It was therefore unreasonable for it not to have raised a window repair in keeping with its repair policy timescales.
The resident chased an update on 24 November 2023. The landlord, in its stage 1 complaint response, acknowledged it had delayed making contact with the resident.
The surveyor contacted the resident on 24 November 2023, but said they had not seen any of the previous messages or they would have contacted her sooner. The surveyor explained that the call with the resident was difficult, with both the resident and surveyor becoming upset. The surveyor terminated the call and asked for another surveyor to pick up the case.
There is no evidence that the landlord made contact with the resident again until 16 January 2024. The records state that the resident could not take the call and that a text message was sent on 16 January 2024. This was 3 months after the previous call. The resident responded by text message on the same date to say that she had been trying to raise a complaint about the previous surveyor, but it had ignored her requests.
The landlord’s stage 1 response was issued on 19 January 2024, which accepted unreasonable delays on its part. It said that the new surveyor had been trying to make contact with the resident. The resident had sent a text message to the surveyor on 18 January 2024 to say that, as she was a teacher, her only availability was 23 February 2024 to discuss the matter. The resident called the landlord to chase it for an update.
The landlord and resident sent text messages in January 2024 but there is no evidence that an appointment was set or arranged. It is not clear why the landlord, during the course of the text messages, did not offer a date and time to attend the property.
The resident escalated her complaint on 5 February 2024, in which she said that the landlord had been ignoring the health and safety issues.
There is no evidence of further contact between the parties until the resident texted the landlord on 5 March 2024. The email suggested that a call had taken place that day. The resident explained her circumstances but expressed dissatisfaction at missed opportunities by the landlord to complete an inspection. The resident said that she would see what her availability was and revert.
The resident’s solicitor began to handle matters from 13 March 2024. There is no evidence that the resident did contact the landlord with her availability until at least 15 April 2024 when the repair was marked as closed.
The Housing Ombudsman produced a Spotlight report on damp and mould in October 2021 which recommends that landlords adopt a zero tolerance approach to damp and mould in homes. When assessing the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould in this case, the key elements are whether it was proactive in identifying the cause of the damp and mould, the actions it had taken to treat, remove, and combat the mould, as well as its adherence to its policies and expected customer service standards. It is evident from the information provided that the landlord failed to achieve any of the key recommendations. The cumulative impact of the landlord’s failure to address the repairs which included damp and mould represents a significant failing.
There is no evidence that that landlord had considered the water ingress and the condition of the rendering and insulation in the property due to its failure to access and inspect the property. Furthermore, because the landlord did not inspect the property prior to issuing its final complaint response it did not refer to the water ingress, the condition of the rendering and the effectiveness of the insulation in the property in its final response.
The landlord emailed the resident on 22 April 2024 with 4 alternative dates for an inspection. The landlord emailed the resident again offering appointments for 20 and 30 May 2024. It is not clear on why this approach could not have been taken sooner. On 20 May 2024, the landlord booked an inspection for 6 June 2024. The landlord’s internal complaint procedure was exhausted on 31 May 2024.
There is no evidence that the landlord was proactive or offered alternative appointments and there were significant delays throughout the process. The landlord is not solely responsible for the delays, however, in that the resident advised she would revert with suitable dates and did not. Taken together the landlord was responsible for maladministration in its handling of the damp and mould in the property.
The landlord’s failure to address the outstanding property repairs is likely to have contributed to the resident’s decision to instruct a solicitor.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of poor communication about repairs and appointments.

It is important to discuss the landlord’s handling of communication separately when considering the overall handling the damp and mould and repairs – just to aid clarity. A landlord’s communication with its residents is a crucial part of building rapport and maintaining cohesive relationships with its residents. Furthermore it helps to build confidence in the housing services it provides in keeping with its policies and procedures. It is evident that throughout this case the landlord held conversations with the resident over the telephone, by text and via email which was reasonable.
In responding to the resident about repairs and appointments the landlord:
1. left voicemails for the resident on 30 November 2023, 16, 17, and 23 January 2024 requesting her to call back
2. offered to make arrangements to call and/or inspect the property in the evenings or outside of the resident’s working hours on 19 January 2024
3. provided 4 appointments for the resident to choose from on 22 April 2024.
4. emailed the resident on 14 May 2024 to advise it could attend the property on either 23 or 30 May 2024, subject to her availability
5. left a voicemail for the resident on 17 May 2024 to follow up on the appointment dates it had proposed in its previous email
6. booked an appointment for 4 June 2024 and asked the resident’s solicitor to communicate the appointment date to her
However, there was maladministration in the landlord’s communication with the resident about appointments and repairs as the landlord:
1. failed to contact the resident about the repairs she had reported in May 2023 until 25 July 2023, 2 months later
2. contacted the resident on 25 July 2023 to say it would call her after 7 August 2023 following a period of annual leave
3. contacted the resident on 1 August 2023 to apologise for its appointment booking delays and to confirm that a surveyor would call her back after a period of annual leave. But it failed to do so
4. arranged to inspect the property on 29 August 2023 but the resident cancelled the inspection because it had not provided sufficient notice
5. failed to rebook the inspection when the resident cancelled it on 29 August 2023 and failed to respond to the resident’s request for it to call her back to rearrange the appointment
6. made a note on its housing database on 24 October 2023 that it needed to arrange an inspection with the resident. But there is no evidence that it did so prior to 17 November 2023 when it asked for someone to contact and/or leave a message for the resident
7. contacted the resident on 24 November 2023 during which it apologised for failing to contact her sooner. However it noted that the communication was challenging and resulted in the call being terminated without an inspection appointment being arranged
While it is a fundamental part of the Ombudsman’s role to consider whether a landlord has acted appropriately in response to a formal complaint, this will often necessitate an assessment of how the resident’s own actions may have contributed to the situation. Rather than demonstrating bias in favour of the landlord, this is an example of our independent and impartial role in practice, as we consider the conduct of both parties equally. It is evident that on some occasions the resident’s actions also prevented the landlord from arranging a property inspection. The resident:
1. did not respond to the voicemail the landlord had left for her about an inspection on 30 November 2023
2. replied to the landlord on 18 January 2024 to say that she could not arrange an inspection until 23 February 2024. She explained that this was due to her work commitments. But she did not make any alternative arrangements when the landlord offered to accommodate her work responsibilities
3. advised the landlord on 5 March 2024 that she would see when she had availability for it to complete the inspection because she was trying to get closure on the distress its handling of the matters had caused. She did not provide any further suitable inspection dates
4. did not respond to a series of suitable appointments the landlord had proposed in an email it sent to her on 22 April 2024
5. did not respond to 2 further suitable appointments the landlord had proposed in an email it sent to her on 17 May 2024
The landlord considered its communication about repairs and appointments in its complaint responses. It recognised its communication failings, offered the resident an apology, and a compensation award of £325 for the inconvenience, time, and trouble the resident had incurred. It is important to highlight that the landlord recognised its errors here and looked to put things right. That learning was missed, however, in the overall handling of the damp and mould and repairs which was a missed opportunity.

Conclusions on the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of repairs in the property including damp and mould

Taken together the Ombudsman finds the landlord was responsible for maladministration in its response to the resident’s reports of repairs in the property including damp and mould. This is primarily because:
1. it cannot identify when the issues were initially reported.
2. it arranged an inspection in May 2023 and had notice of the issues with damp and mould, water ingression on the walls, and rotten window frames. The landlord failed to action this by arranging repairs or deciding on further exploratory work to diagnose the issue with the damp and mould
3. there are no reasons why it could not have offered the resident suitable appointment times and dates
4. there is no evidence that the landlord had due regard to the hazards that were present in the property
5. the landlord’s overall communication was poor
It is also evident that the matters have remained outstanding beyond the landlord’s final complaint response.
The landlord offered the resident £300 for its delay in resolving repairs up to the disrepair claim, and for the time it had taken to respond to the issues she had raised. The landlord’s offer of compensation was not proportionate to the likely detriment that the resident incurred for over a year while living in damp conditions with a series of outstanding repairs. However, it must be noted that there were occasions when the resident did not contact the landlord again with suitable appointments and the landlord could not be held responsible for that.
This Service considers that an increased award of compensation is due in keeping with our remedies guidance. This Service awards up to £600 for maladministration that has adversely affected a resident and when the landlord has failed to address the detriment to the resident and/or the offer was not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation. Given that the landlord had not accessed the property, and it could not address the rendering, insulation, and water ingress an award at the higher end of our remedies guidance is appropriate. An additional award of £300 is therefore ordered below as proportionate compensation for the detriment that had been caused to the resident for the impact of its accumulated repair handling failings.
The landlord has provided evidence to this Service which shows that it has reviewed its response to reports of damp and mould against the recommendations in the Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on damp and mould (October 2021). Furthermore, on 27 March 2024 within a separate investigation this Service made a further recommendation that the landlord reviews the Spotlight report on damp and mould. We have therefore not made a further order for the landlord to review its approach to damp and mould.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a pest infestation in the property

It is not clear when the resident first reported concerns about pests in the property to the landlord. However this Service raised the matter on behalf of the resident in January 2024. The resident’s solicitor said that wasps and mosquitoes had accessed the property through gaps in the windows in its letter of 13 March 2024.
The landlord’s responsive repair policy says that residents are responsible for treating pests in the property and for preventing them from accessing the property. It also says that it will treat pests in communal areas or that are spreading across multiple homes. The landlord raised a repair order on 22 January 2024 for a pest control contractor to contact the resident to make an appointment to address the pests. This was reasonable.
The contractor held a conversation with the resident within 48 hours of the repair being raised. However the resident said that that there were no pests in the property and so it subsequently closed the works order. The Ombudsman finds that the landlord’s actions were appropriate and there is no evidence of failure.

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

There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaints as the landlord:
1. did not acknowledge the stage 1 complaint in keeping with its complaint policy and paragraph 4.1 of the Housing Ombudsman complaint handling code (the ‘Code’) that was in place at the time which says a complaint should be acknowledged and logged within 5 days of receipt
2. did not fully address the resident’s complaint such as by providing information about its response to pests, and the condition of rendering and insulation in the property. This was not in keeping with paragraph 5.6 of the Code which says landlords must address all points raised in the complaint.
3. The resident also raised concerns about the increased costs of having to use ‘air circulation and heating equipment.’ The landlord said that it would considered this when the repairs were completed. However this was unreasonable given that the landlord could not foresee when it would completed the repairs.
4. did not agree an extension of time with the resident for the provision of its stage 2 response in keeping with paragraph 5.14 of the Code which says if an extension beyond 10 working days is required to enable the landlord to respond to the complaint fully, this should be agreed by both parties
5. did not issue its response to the resident’s stage 2 complaint of 5 February 2024 until 31 May 2024 which was 96 working days later that its 20-working day complaint policy timescale
6. said that because the matter had become a disrepair claim the matters had to be handled by its disrepair team. It is evident that resident’s solicitor had sent a letter to the landlord about the disrepair in the property in March 2024. However there is no evidence that any disrepair claim had been filed with the courts. The landlord’s decision not to address substantive issues within the complaint was not in keeping with its complaint policy which says it would not respond to a complaint where a claim form or particulars of claim have been filed
7. did not say if it had upheld the stage 2 complaint in accordance with paragraph 5.16 of the Code which says landlords must confirm the decision on the complaint, and any reasons for the decisions made
The landlord offered the resident £150 as compensation for its complaint handling delays. This was in keeping with its compensation policy where high impact is found which caused a serious service failure and a significant level of distress and inconvenience to the resident. This award is within the range of awards set out in this Service’s remedies guidance for cases such as this where a landlord has acknowledged failings and made some attempt to put things right. But it fails to proportionately address the inconvenience, time and trouble likely caused to the resident in seeking a resolution to the complaint. An increased award of compensation is therefore awarded below.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was:
1. maladministration in the landlord’s response to resident’s reports of repairs in the property including damp and mould
2. no maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a pest infestation in the property
3. maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint
In accordance with paragraph 53 of the Scheme there was reasonable redress in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of poor communication about repairs and appointments

Orders and recommendations

The landlord must, within 28 days of the date of this determination:
1. apologise in writing to the resident for its handling of the damp and mould and repairs in the property and for its complaint handling failings.
2. pay the resident £1,475 made up as follows:
  1. £775 compensation offered in the stage 2 response if it has not already done so
  2. an additional £300 (£600 total) for the time, trouble, and inconvenience likely caused to the resident for the impact of the landlord’s accumulated repair handling failings
  3. an additional £50 (£200 total) for time and trouble caused to the resident related to the landlord’s complaint handling failures
  4. £350 as a contribution towards the costs of the air circulation and heating equipment or such other amount based on the invoices provided by the resident, if higher
3. contact the resident with 4 dates (with times) where they are available to conduct a full survey of the property. The appointments must be dated within the next 28 days. The landlord must complete the survey on the agreed appointment date. The survey must:
  1. comment on the damp and mould, including the causes and any remedial works
  2. comment on the rotten windows, the heating and water ingress and whether there is a problem with the insultation and rendering
  3. comment on any other repairs within the property that require works.
  4. set out a full scope of works or any additional exploratory works, together with indicative timescales to complete the work
  5. provide photographs
  6. state whether the property is fit for human habitation
  7. state whether suitable alternative accommodation in required to complete the works
Within 10 working days of the date of the survey the landlord must share a copy with the Ombudsman and the resident.
The landlord must use its best endeavours to ensure the repairs are commenced within 28 days of the date of the survey report. It must set out why this is not possible together with evidence if it cannot do so.
If the resident does not respond to the landlord’s appointment requests, the landlord is recommended to consider giving notice under s.11(6) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 to access the premises giving (at least) 24 hours written notice.