Notting Hill Genesis (NHG) (202342922)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202342922

Notting Hill Genesis (NHG)

20 August 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:
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about window repairs.
2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about a missed appointment.
3. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is a leaseholder of the landlord. The resident purchased the lease on 24 February 2012. The property is a 1–bedroom first floor flat, in a block of 16 flats. The windows were replaced at the block in 2017, including the resident’s property.
The resident raised a complaint to the landlord on 12 December 2023. She said the following:
1. She logged a repair to a window but the repair job was not approved and was cancelled.
2. The landlord had not contacted her.
3. An appointment for a fire and safety door check was cancelled without notice.
On 13 December 2023, a contractor attended the resident’s property to assess the repair to the kitchen window. The resident told the landlord on this date that the contractor had fixed the kitchen window but the handle on a window facing the balcony was also stuck and the contractor had advised her this was a fire safety risk. The landlord approved further repairs to the windows on 14 December 2023. These were completed on 20 December 2023. On the same day, the resident told the landlord its contractor advised her the windows were not correctly installed. She asked the landlord for details of the contractor who installed the windows and for confirmation of how much she paid for this in her service charge. The resident said that when she called to report the repair, she was told the job could not be arranged because she was a leaseholder.
The landlord responded at stage 1 of its complaints process on 5 January 2024. It said the following:
1. A repair was raised twice on its system, which led to the cancellation of one as a duplicate. It acknowledged this may not have been immediately clear and apologised for this.
2. It emailed the resident on 12 December 2023 to explain the situation and prevent any further misunderstanding.
3. The resident raised the repair request via email on 8 December 2023. A contractor attended on 13 December 2023 to inspect and report back prior to a repair taking place.
4. The repair was not considered an emergency and it allowed 20 working days to resolve this as per its policy.
5. The repair did not extend past the 20 working days and met its standards.
6. It understood the resident’s frustration about the subpar installation of windows and doors in 2017. The warranty period had lapsed and this made it challenging to recall contractors after this extended time.
7. The issue had not been brought to its attention in the previous 6 to 7 years since the installation.
8. It encouraged residents to lubricate door and window locks and hinges to help elongate the length of time the door and window functioned properly.
9. It apologised for its contractor failing to advise the resident that a fire and safety door check had been cancelled. It was engaging in discussions with the contractor to understand what had gone wrong and to find a solution.
The resident escalated her complaint on 6 January 2024. She said the following:
1. She spoke with 3 different members of staff when logging the repair to the window. The staff members provided conflicting information.
2. On 8 December 2023, the landlord told her an engineer was booked to assess the issue with the window for 9 December 2023.
3. The engineer did not turn up on 9 December 2023. The resident called the landlord and was told it was unable to log the repair because she was a leaseholder. The resident spoke with another member of staff on the same day who advised the repair was cancelled.
4. She requested to see the warranty or guarantee document for the windows installed in 2017. The resident asked for the details of the contractor who installed the windows, the warranty period, how the contractor was sourced, and the cost.
5. The landlord had not notified resident’s that the windows needed to be maintained.
6. She requested to see the report by the contractor who attended her window repair in December 2023.
7. The contractor fixed some of the window handles in her property, and had to lubricate the windows, balcony, and patio doors because they were not in a good state.
8. The contractor told the resident the windows were poorly fitted.
9. The contractor told the resident the window facing the balcony was a health and safety issue because the handle was stuck, and in the event of a fire she would have a problem trying to get out.
10. The landlord was stating that now the warranty had run out, the resident had to maintain the windows.
11. It was the landlord’s responsibility to maintain the windows going forward because it installed them and the resident had paid for this.
12. The landlord’s contractor contacted her several times to arrange a health and safety inspection of the front door. The contractor did not arrive to the arranged appointment. The resident called the contractor who advised the appointment was no longer needed.
13. She did not receive a text message to inform her the appointment was cancelled.
14. She had taken time off work for the appointment.
15. The landlord had not provided full explanations for the points she raised.
The resident contacted this Service on 26 February 2024 because she had not received a stage 2 response from the landlord. On 26 March 2024, the landlord provided its final response. It said the following:
1. It apologised for the resident’s experience when trying to book the repair of her window.
2. The out of hours service was for emergency repairs and the repair to the window was not classed as an emergency under its repairs policy.
3. The members of staff the resident spoke to on 9 December 2024 did log the repair in the correct way, which was to log it on the system to be picked up on the next working day.
4. The repair was picked up on Tuesday 12 December 2023, and a contractor attended on 13 December 2023. This was within the 20-day timeframe for repairs.
5. It acknowledged its failure in advising the resident that an engineer had been instructed.
6. The landlord provided details about the contractor who installed the windows, the procurement of the contractor and the costs of the work. It said the windows were replaced as part of major works.
7. The contractor who repaired the resident’s windows in December 2022 stated in their opinion that the windows may have been poorly fitted, but due to the time passed it was harder to prove this and the window handles do need to be maintained by residents as well.
8. It was always the case that residents needed to maintain their windows throughout the years to keep them in good working order.
9. Where the windows require a repair that falls under the landlord’s responsibility under the terms of the lease, it would pick this up.
10. There was no way of the landlord knowing that the windows required fixing unless resident’s report this. It does not have regular access to the residents home and therefore relied on the resident to report any issues.
11. It apologised for the missed fire safety appointment. When the Fire team reviewed the specification of works and carried out an assessment of the block, they learned that the works were no longer necessary. It should have told the resident this information.
12. It did not send the stage 2 response within a reasonable timeframe. This was due to the movement of teams and annual leave, which meant it was missed.
13. It offered the resident £450 of compensation, broken down as:
  1. £250 for the delay to the stage 2 response.
  2. £100 for the missed appointment.
  3. £100 for misinformation its out of hours service provided to the resident.
The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response. The complaint was accepted for investigation by this Service in April 2024. The resident said the landlord did not provide enough detail about why it chose the contractor to install the windows, the landlord had not provided the guarantee for the windows, or the report from the contractor about the windows in December 2023. The resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s offer of compensation. The resident said she paid for “poor, cheap and unsafe windows,” through her service charge.

Assessment and findings

Scope of Investigation.

Part of the resident’s complaint is about the quality of the windows installed in 2017 in relation to the service charge paid, and a request for compensation for this. While the Ombudsman is sympathetic, this Service is unable to make a judgement on the reasonableness of service charges which were imposed in the past. This Service will not normally make a binding decision on complaints about the level of or increase to service charges or determine whether service charges are reasonable or payable. Under Paragraph 42(d) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, we may not consider complaints which, concern the level of rent or service charge or the amount of a rent or service charge increase.
Complaints that relate to the level, reasonableness, or liability to pay rent or service charges are more appropriately handled by the First-Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) and the resident would be advised to seek legal advice in relation to how to proceed with these issues. The First Tier Tribunal handles applications and appeals relating to disputes over property and land including leasehold disputes and the reasonableness of service charges.
In raising her complaint to this Service, the resident also raised concerns about the main front door not being looked at, the amount of service charge paid, and mould. In accordance with the Ombudsman’s jurisdictional authority under the Scheme, and in the interest of fairness, the scope of this investigation is limited to the issues raised during the resident’s formal complaint made in December 2023. This is because the landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction with its actions prior to the investigation of this Service. Any further issues that have not been subject to a formal complaint can be addressed directly with the landlord and progressed as a new formal complaint if required.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about window repairs.

The lease agreement says the resident agrees with the landlord to keep the interior of the property and the glass in the windows and doors, and the fixtures of the property in good and substantial repair condition. The landlord agrees with the resident to maintain, repair, and redecorate the roof, foundation and main structure of the building, and all external parts including the windows and doors on the outside of the flats within the building.
The landlord’s responsive repairs policy says it defines an emergency repair as one that presents an immediate danger and imminent risk to the resident, public or property, or would jeopardise the health, safety, or security of the resident. The policy says residents are responsible for repairs to lubricate door/window locks and hinges. The landlord will attend emergency repairs within 4 hours and works to make safe or temporarily repair should be completed within this visit or 24 hours. It aims to complete standard repairs within 20 working days.
The landlord’s compensation and goodwill gestures policy says it will consider financial compensation where it has failed to follow its published policies or there have been unreasonable delays against its service standards. If a contractor working on behalf of the landlord fails to attend an appointment a resident may be entitled to £30 compensation. The landlord will not usually pay inconvenience or distress payments alongside compensation for a missed appointment unless there has been multiple failures.
The policy says where a resident has suffered inconvenience or distress above what a reasonable person would be expected to tolerate, the landlord can make a discretionary payment to compensate them. The amount of compensation is calculated based on the impact on the resident and ranges from £50 to £250.
The resident reported to the landlord on 8 December 2023 that her kitchen window was not closing properly. The repair to the window was completed on 13 December 2023. This was a timeframe of 3 working days. This met the timeframe in the landlord’s repair policy.
Further repairs to the windows were identified by the contractor on 13 December 2023. The landlord’s repair records showed it approved further repairs to 6 windows on 14 December 2023. This repair was completed on 20 December 2023. This was again completed within the timescale set out in the landlord’s repairs policy. The landlord demonstrated it responded to the additional concerns about the windows promptly. This was appropriate, given the resident raised safety concerns about the windows.
It was evident that the landlord incorrectly told the resident on 8 December 2023 that an engineer would visit her property on 9 December 2023 to assess the repair. The resident said she was told the repair could not be logged because she was a leaseholder, and had been cancelled, during further conversations with the landlord on 9 December 2023. In its final complaint response, the landlord acknowledged its error here. It apologised for the resident’s experience and explained the process that should have taken place.
To provide a fair response, landlords are expected to resolve complaints by addressing both the main issue raised and any inconvenience that happened. When a landlord agrees that it failed to provide a service, the expectation is for the landlord to offer redress. The landlord attempted to resolve this part of the resident’s complaint through an offer of compensation of £100. The landlord acknowledged the frustration caused to the resident of staying at her property on 9 December 2023 to provide access. The offer of redress made by the landlord shows good practice in trying to resolve complaints and learn from outcomes. It was proportionate to the distress and inconvenience caused and was in accordance with the landlord’s compensation policy and the Ombudsman’s own remedies guidance.
The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response to her concerns about the quality of the windows which were installed in 2017. The resident requested a copy of the guarantee for the windows. The landlord’s final response included information about the contractor who completed the window installation in 2017, the cost, and it confirmed the warranty for the work had expired. While the landlord did not provide the warranty for the windows, given that the windows were installed in 2017 and the warranty had expired, this was reasonable.
The landlord demonstrated that it investigated the resident’s concerns that the windows had been poorly fitted in 2017. It discussed the resident’s concerns with its current contractor in December 2023. The correspondence from the contractor to the landlord following the assessment of the resident’s windows on 13 December 2023 stated 3 of the windows were jammed and 6 windows needed overhauling. The resident requested a copy of the contractor’s report from the assessment. This Service recommends that such reports are shared with residents, as to provide transparency and reassurance. The landlord did not provide this to the resident. However, it did confirm on 13 December 2023 that further repairs would be completed. In its final response, the landlord confirmed to the resident the outcome of its discussions with its contractor about the quality of the window installation in 2017. This service has not seen any evidence of further reports or correspondence between the contractor and the landlord on this matter, or further information that had not been shared with the resident.
The resident raised her concerns about a fire safety risk on 13 December 2023. The resident reported that the handle on the window facing her balcony was also stuck. She said the contractor had advised this was a security and a fire safety risk, because if there was a fire in her kitchen, she would not be able to open the window properly to escape through the balcony. This Service is not able to comment on conversations between the resident and the contractor. However, this Service was not provided with any evidence from the landlord that the contractor raised health and safety concerns about the windows.
The landlord contacted the contractor on 13 December 2023 to ask for a quote for the further repairs the contractor had identified. The job was issued to the contractor on 14 December 2023. This demonstrated the landlord taking timely action to respond to the resident’s concerns. The further repairs were completed on 20 December 2023. No evidence was provided to this Service of the resident raising further repair reports about the windows to the landlord.
As part of this investigation the landlord provided the current Fire Risk Assessment for the building. This noted the current evacuation strategy for the property was to stay put in the event of fire. The windows were not referred to within the report. The landlord confirmed where windows required further repairs that were its responsibility it would continue to repair these. However, it was noted that the landlord’s response did not specifically address the resident’s health and safety and fire safety concerns.
It is not clear from the correspondence if the resident’s concerns here were regarding the window handle which had been repaired on 20 December 2023, and the likelihood of this becoming stuck again, or that the window handles were still not fully working. As such, a recommendation has been made for the landlord to contact the resident about her fire safety concerns in regard to the windows in her property, to assess if any repair issues remain outstanding.
The landlord confirmed that issues with the windows had not been brought to its attention in the 7 years prior to the resident’s repair report. As such, it was not aware of any problems with the quality of the windows. This was a reasonable response. As the landlord does not undertake periodic inspections of the residents property, it is reasonable for the landlord to rely on repair reports from residents.
The resident remained dissatisfied that the landlord had advised her to maintain the windows and lubricate these. The landlord confirmed in its final response that it had always been the case that residents needed to maintain their windows to keep them in good working order. This was in line with the guidance in its repairs policy. This response was reasonable in consideration that the landlord would not have regular access to the resident’s property to be able to maintain these parts of the windows. The landlord also confirmed it would continue to pick up repairs to the windows which were its responsibility. This Service had not seen evidence that the resident was asked to maintain the windows in a different way following the contractor’s visit in December 2023.
The resident said she was not told at the time the windows were installed that she needed to maintain them or provided with any information on this. Due to the amount of time that has passed from the windows being installed in 2017, it is not possible for the Service to investigate this point of the resident’s complaint. It was noted that the landlord confirmed in its stage 1 response that it encourages residents to lubricate door and window locks and hinges to help elongate the length of time the door and window function correctly. This was in line with the information in its repairs policy. The lease agreement also stated the resident was responsible to keep in good repair the interior of the property.
In summary, the landlord completed the initial repair to the window, and further identified repairs within a reasonable timeframe. This was in line with its repairs policy. The landlord provided the resident with information on the original window installation. It demonstrated that it investigated her concerns about the quality of the windows, highlighted during the repair in December 2023, with its contractor. The landlord acknowledged its failure when responding to the resident’s repair report and the incorrect information it provided. The landlord demonstrated it investigated this and took into consideration the frustration caused to the resident by the misinformation it provided.
The landlord attempted to put things right for the resident with an offer of compensation of £100. This was proportionate to the distress and inconvenience caused by the specific failure it had identified. It was also in accordance with the Ombudsman’s own Remedies guidance. Therefore, it is the opinion of this Service that the £100 offered by the landlord was reasonable redress.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about a missed appointment.

The resident raised in her complaint that the landlord’s contractor missed an arranged appointment for a fire safety check to her front door on 8 December 2023. The landlord failed to inform the resident of the appointment. This did not demonstrate a customer focused approach. It was also not clear in its stage 1 response about the reasons for the cancellation of the appointment. The resident was not clear following the stage 1 response if a further appointment was necessary and had to escalate her complaint to receive an answer on this.
In its complaint responses the landlord acknowledged the missed appointment. The landlord confirmed the appointment was cancelled because the works were no longer necessary following a review of the specification of works and an assessment of the block by its fire team. The landlord provided a satisfactory explanation for the cancellation of the appointment here.
The landlord apologised for the missed appointment and offered compensation of £100 for this. It was noted the £100 for the missed appointment was more than the levels of compensation specified in the landlord’s compensation and goodwill gestures policy. This states if a contractor working on behalf of the landlord fails to attend an appointment a resident may be entitled to £30 compensation. The action by the landlord to offer compensation above this demonstrated it recognised the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the missed appointment. This compensation was proportionate to the landlord’s failing here and the detriment to the resident. Therefore, this Service considers that the £100 offered by the landlord was reasonable redress.

The landlord’s complaint handling.

The landlord’s complaint procedure says it will acknowledge a complaint within 2 working days. It will respond to a stage 1 complaint within 10 working days of the complaint being made. At stage 2 the landlord will respond within 20 days of receiving an escalation request.
The Complaint Handling Code sets out the Ombudsman’s expectations for landlords’ complaint handling practices. The Code states that a stage 1 response should be provided within 10 working days and a stage 2 response within 20 working days from the request to escalate. This should not exceed a further ten working days without good reason.
The resident escalated her complaint in an email to the landlord on 6 January 2024. The landlord provided its response on 26 March 2024. This was a timeframe of 56 working days. The landlord failed to meet the timescales in its complaints policy, or the Code.
It was noted the landlord provided an update to the resident on her complaint on 8 February 2024. It said the response would be with the resident by the end of the following day. When the response was not received, the resident followed this up with the landlord on 26 February 2024, and also asked this Service for assistance. The landlord provided its final response following contact from this Service. The landlord failed to keep the resident fully updated on the process of her stage 2 complaint. As a result, she took the time and trouble to follow up with the landlord and contact this Service.
The landlord acknowledged the delay in its final response. It said this was due to the movement of teams and annual leave. The landlord said this was unacceptable and offered the resident £250 compensation for the delay. It was appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge the delay. It also demonstrated it investigated what went wrong and identified the error it made. The £250 of compensation offered was in line with the ranges set out in its compensation and goodwill gestures policy. The offer of compensation demonstrated good practice by the landlord in identifying a failure and an attempt to put things right for the resident.
In summary, the landlord’s final response took too long. This did not meet the timescales set out in the landlord’s complaints policy or the Code. As a result, the resident had to continue to follow up with the landlord and seek the assistance of this Service to receive the landlord’s final response. The landlord acknowledged it missed sending the response, and demonstrated it investigated its failure here. The compensation offered to the resident was in line with its compensation policy, at the higher end of its compensation range to reflect the impact on the resident. Therefore, the £250 offered by the landlord in recognition of its complaint handling failures, was reasonable redress.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was reasonable redress in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about window repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was reasonable redress in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about a missed appointment.
In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was reasonable redress in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Recommendations.

The landlord is to pay the resident the £450 compensation it has offered the resident through its complaints process if it has not done so already. The Ombudsman’s findings of reasonable redress is based on the understanding that this compensation will be paid.
The landlord should contact the resident about her fire safety concerns in regard to the windows in her property, to assess if any repair issues remain outstanding.