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

Notting Hill Genesis (NHG) (202420263)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202420263

Notting Hill Genesis (NHG)

14 January 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
    1. Reports that the heating was not functioning correctly.
    2. Associated formal complaint.

Background

  1. The resident has been an assured tenant of the property, a 2-bedroom, second floor flat, since 2010. He lives with his wife and both are vulnerable due to their health. The landlord is a housing association.
  2. On 5 January 2024 the resident reported to the landlord that his heating was not working. He said that he would turn the temperature up or down but the system would not respond properly and stayed at the previous temperature. He also asked that a complaint be raised about this issue.
  3. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s report the same day and confirmed that it had arranged a visit for 6 January 2024. It also explained that it would not be raising a complaint as it had not had the opportunity to complete the repair. If there were concerns with the repair or delays the resident would then be able to raise a complaint.
  4. The landlord and management company ultimately attended separately on 12 January 2024 (rather than 6 January 2024 as planned) and found low system pressure which was preventing the temperature warming up. It topped up the pressure, bled the system and said the heating was left in working order. However, following those visits, the resident continued to report problems and the landlord remained in contact with him. As the matter was not resolved, it logged a complaint on 1 March 2024.
  5. In the landlord’s stage 1 response of 4 April 2024 it detailed the outcome of the January 2024 visit and noted that a further visit took place on 7 February 2024. The heating was found to be working but the engineer recommended the installation of new thermostats to prevent further issues. It said there had been several attempts to fit the thermostats in February 2024 but it could not access the property and it was unable to contact the resident. The thermostats were ultimately installed on 26 March 2024 and the landlord apologised for the inconvenience caused during this process.
  6. From 5 April 2024 the resident continued to send the landlord daily emails, saying it had “refused to log 2nd/final stage complaint” and that his heating was still not working.
  7. The landlord then issued a stage 2 response on 2 May 2024, when it said:
    1. Between 12 January and 26 March 2024 there had been 3 visits by a contractor and 1 by the managing agent, and each time they found the heating to be in working order. It had relied on these reports to confirm that the resident did have heating.
    2. It acknowledged that the contractor that attended on 12 January 2024 did not confirm whether the heating system was functioning or if there had been an outage. As such, it offered £17 for the period that the resident might have been without heating and £25 compensation for any distress and inconvenience.
    3. It had not raised a complaint on 5 January 2024 as this was the first time the resident reported issues with the heating and it had not had the opportunity to resolve them.
  8. On 7 May 2024 the resident contacted this Service and confirmed he wanted us to investigate his complaint. He said that the landlord had delayed logging the complaint he raised on 5 January 2024, and he disputed the information it had relied on about the visits. He also said during a call with this Service in December 2024 that the new thermostats had not been installed and his heating was still not working properly.

Assessment and findings

Heating repairs

  1. The landlord’s repairs policy defines an ‘emergency repair’ as one which presents an immediate danger or risk to the resident, or that would jeopardise their health, safety or security. It says that emergency repairs will be attended to within 4 hours and works to make safe or temporarily repair should be completed at the visit or within 24 hours. It also says that anything else is classed as a standard repair and these will be completed within 20 working days.
  2. The resident reported that his heating was not functioning properly on 5 January 2024. He said that in 1 of the bedrooms and the living room he would turn the temperature down or off but it would occasionally not change. He said that in the other bedroom he would turn the temperature up but it would not work and the room remained cold.
  3. The landlord’s records do not make it clear whether the report was classed as an emergency or standard repair. Regardless, it was not reasonable for the landlord to inform the resident that it would attend the next day but then not do so until 6 days later. Additionally, the Ombudsman has seen no evidence that the landlord was in contact with the resident about the delay during this period. The delay and lack of updates caused the resident avoidable distress and inconvenience and this would have had a greater impact on the household due to their vulnerabilities and the time of year.
  4. On 12 January 2024 the contractor found the thermostats and programmers were working but said a joint visit with the management company was required as only they had access to the components in the external cupboard. This was reported to the management company and they arranged for a contractor to attend the same day. The management company then reported back to the landlord and advised it was low system pressure that had prevented the temperature warming up. It confirmed it had topped up the pressure, bled the system and the heating was left in working order. However, the landlord has not provided copies of the job reports by either its contractor or the management company’s.
  5. Landlords are entitled to rely on information provided to them by their contractors and representatives in the absence of independent third-party evidence to the contrary. In this instance, both the landlord’s contractors and those of the management company confirmed that the heating was left in working order following their respective visits.
  6. However, the resident continued to contact the landlord regularly to report that the heating was not working properly. On 2 February 2024 the landlord contacted him and said it had emailed him on 2 occasions requesting clarification on his ongoing reports, as his communications only ever referred to the initial report on 5 January 2024. It was appropriate for the landlord to seek clarity in that regard, but it has said the resident never responded directly to this question.
  7. The resident continued to email the landlord about the heating not working properly, so it arranged for an engineer to attend. While the landlord has not provided copies of any job reports, emails from the engineer say they attended on 7 February 2024 and found the heating was working but was not as hot as it should have been. As a result, new thermostats were ordered and these were ready by 9 February 2024.
  8. The contractors said they had tried to call the resident and sent multiple messages but received no response. Despite this they booked an appointment for 13 February 2024, but on the day the contractors had no access to the property. They rebooked the appointment for 16 February 2024, but again had no access. They then closed the job and returned the parts on 26 February 2024 as they had been unable to speak with the resident.
  9. In an update email of 1 March 2024 the landlord acknowledged that the resident disputed that he was contacted about any appointments. While the landlord is entitled to rely on reports by its contractors, it has not provided evidence of any messages, voice messages or visit cards left by the contractors regarding the attempted appointments. Without this information the Ombudsman is unable to conclude that all reasonable steps were taken to contact the resident and arrange appointments to fix the heating. This caused a delay to the repair works as well as additional inconvenience to the resident, who continued to regularly contact the landlord regarding the ongoing issues.
  10. The landlord arranged a new appointment with the resident for fitting the thermostats for 26 March 2024 and its complaint responses said they were replaced during that visit. However, the evidence seen does not support this. The resident has told this Service that the engineers arrived unannounced on 25 March 2024 and did not install the thermostats. He has said that they took pictures of the old thermostats and told him this was so they could order the correct replacements. The information seen shows the landlord spoke with the engineers on 8 April 2024. They confirmed the visit took place on 25 March 2024, that they found the thermostats to be faulty and that they would have to order new thermostats.
  11. The contradictory information between when the landlord has said the thermostats were replaced and what both the resident and the engineers have said indicates poor record keeping and monitoring on the part of the landlord. This, in turn, led to delays and caused the resident inconvenience. The landlord has also not explained why the thermostats needed to be inspected before ordering replacements. As the thermostats had already been inspected and replacements ordered in February 2024, inspecting them again caused an unnecessary delay in the repair works being carried out. Additionally, the landlord has not provided evidence of any further visits or works after 25 March 2024. On 5 December 2024 the Ombudsman spoke with the resident, he said that since 25 March 2024 he had not received any updates about replacing the thermostats.
  12. Overall the landlord’s failings amount to maladministration and can be summarised as failing to adhere to its repair policy timescales, adequately communicate with the resident, and adequately record and monitor the repairs.
  13. In identifying whether there has been maladministration the Ombudsman considers both the events which initially prompted a complaint and the landlord’s response to those events through the operation of its complaints procedure. The extent to which a landlord has recognised and addressed any shortcomings and the appropriateness of any steps taken to offer redress are therefore as relevant as the original mistake or service failure. The Ombudsman will not make a finding of maladministration where the landlord has fully acknowledged any failings and taken reasonable steps to resolve them.
  14. The landlord explained that its stage 2 offer of £17 was reached by awarding 10% of the resident’s daily rent (£3.37) for each of the 5 days he may have been without heating (5 to 12 January 2024, with nothing offered for the first 48 hours). This came to £16.85, which was rounded up to £17. This was in line with the landlord’s compensation policy for loss of heating. It also offered £25 compensation for any distress and inconvenience.
  15. All of the evidence provided to the Ombudsman indicates that the resident did have some level of heating throughout this time. As such, while there were issues with the thermostat, and the heating was not as effective as it could have been, this Service has seen no evidence that the resident was left with a total loss of heating. However, the landlord’s failings caused a vulnerable resident avoidable distress and inconvenience as, in addition to the heating not fully working as it should, the landlord’s inaction left him having to repeatedly report the issue. Therefore, the Ombudsman finds that the compensation of £25 offered is not reflective or proportionate to the circumstances of the case.
  16. Therefore, the Ombudsman orders the landlord to apologise for the failings identified in this report and increase the compensation to £200. This sum is in line with this Service’s published remedies guidance for failings where the landlord has made some attempt to put things right, but the offer was not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation. Additionally, the Ombudsman orders the landlord to carry out a joint inspection of the heating system and confirm when the thermostats will be installed.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy says it will respond to a stage 1 complaints within 10 working days of it being logged, or 20 working days if agreed with the resident.
  2. It was reasonable for the landlord not to log the resident’s complaint on 5 January 2024. Landlords have to be given the opportunity to resolve the reported issues before a complaint can be logged and investigated. In this instance, the resident’s contact on 5 January 2024 was the first time he had told the landlord the heating was not working. As it had not yet had the opportunity to resolve the issues, this was a service request and not a complaint.
  3. That being said, following the repair on 12 January 2024 the resident continued to contact the landlord regularly about the heating. In these emails he also continued to ask that a formal complaint be raised. At this stage, the landlord should have logged a complaint, but it did not do so until 1 March 2024, over a month later.
  4. While the landlord’s responses to the resident’s emails appropriately explained why it did not log a complaint on 5 January 2024, no explanation has been provided as to why it took over a month after the visit on 12 January 2024 for a complaint to be logged. Without an explanation as to why the landlord did not log a complaint sooner, the Ombudsman can only conclude that this delay was unreasonable and avoidable.
  5. Additionally, after logging the complaint on 1 March 2024, the landlord had until 15 March 2024 to issue its stage 1 response. However the landlord did not issue its stage 1 response until 4 April 2024. This was 13 working days outside the timescales set out in its complaints policy, and the Ombudsman has seen no evidence to show that an extension was agreed with the resident.
  6. Overall the landlord’s failings can be summarised as failing to log the complaint within a reasonable time and failing to adhere to its complaints policy timescales. Cumulatively these failures amount to a service failure as they caused unnecessary delay in the complaint being logged and responded to. This in turn caused the resident avoidable time and trouble as he regularly chased the landlord about the complaint.
  7. In view of this, the Ombudsman orders the landlord to apologise for the failings identified in this report and pay £75 compensation. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s published remedies guidance for failings which did not have an impact on the outcome of the complaint nor a lasting impact on the resident.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was:
    1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports that the heating was not functioning correctly.
    2. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must provide the Ombudsman with evidence that it has:
    1. Apologised to the resident for its failures. This written apology must be from a member of the landlord’s senior management team and should follow the Ombudsman’s apologies guidance on our website.
    2. Directly paid to the resident £292 compensation (inclusive of the £42 offered in its final response) comprised of:
      1. £17 for the days the resident was possibly without heating.
      2. £200 for the time, trouble, distress and inconvenience caused by the poor management of the repairs.
      3. £75 for its handling of the complaint.
    3. Carried out a joint inspection of the heating system with the management company. It must write to the resident to confirm the findings of this inspection and provide a timescale for any required repairs.
    4. Confirmed to the resident when the new thermostats will be installed if they have not already been installed.