Notting Hill Genesis (202119278)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202119278

Notting Hill Genesis

06 June 2022

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:
   1. The landlord’s response to a roof leak at the resident’s property, including its handling of the repairs and request for compensation.
   2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for reimbursement for a private plumbing bill from 2019.
   3. The action taken by the landlord to recover rent arrears.
   4. The landlord’s complaints handling.

Background

2. The resident occupies the property, a second floor, 1-bedroom flat, under an assured tenancy agreement with the landlord. The resident suffers from asthma.
3. In 2019, the resident engaged a private plumber to address a leak to the mains water tap, as water was penetrating through to his downstairs neighbour. The resident asked the landlord to reimburse him £246 for the cost of the plumber and states that the landlord agreed at the time, but that the money was never repaid.
4. On 13 July 2021, the resident reported a leak into his property following heavy rainfall, which damaged the ceilings, walls, flooring, and his personal belongings. It also affected the property’s electrics. On inspection, the leak was found to be coming from the roof.
5. The resident made a formal complaint about the landlord’s response to the roof leak and its handling of the associated repairs. He stated that he had been unable to remain in the property as the damp conditions were causing breathing difficulties and the landlord had not progressed or updated him about the repairs. It had also failed to provide a dehumidifier as promised. The resident asked the landlord to compensate him for damage to his belongings and time spent living elsewhere. He stated that as a flood victim he should be entitled to a payment of £350 a week from the landlord’s flood victims’ fund.
6. The resident also complained that his Housing Officer had been unhelpful and had not addressed his concerns, focussing instead on recovering £1,050 that had been paid to him in error from the flood victims’ fund. As part of the complaint, the resident raised concerns about past service, including that his benefits had been reduced to cover disputed rent arrears and that the landlord had not reimbursed him for the private plumbing bill.
7. The landlord’s complaint responses acknowledged a missed appointment and delay in responding to the resident’s complaint, initially offering £100 compensation. At stage 2, the landlord noted that it had not answered the resident’s query about reimbursement of the private plumbing bill. It offered £180 compensation for the stress and inconvenience caused, although it maintained that it was not obliged to reimburse the full cost as the resident should have awaited a visit from the landlord’s out of hours contractor.
8. The landlord explained that the £350 per week was only available to flood victims where residents could not remain in their property. The resident was not entitled to this payment as he had suffered a roof leak and two surveyors had deemed the property habitable. The resident was therefore required to pay back the £1,050 already paid to him in error. The landlord maintained that it was not liable for damage to the resident’s belongings and advised him to claim on his contents insurance. The landlord confirmed that follow-on works would be completed once a full roof inspection had been carried out. The landlord’s final offer of compensation was £230.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

9. Paragraph 39(e) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not normally investigate matters that were not brought to the landlord’s attention as a formal complaint within a reasonable time. This is usually within 6 months of the matter occurring.
10. The resident has complained that the landlord failed to reimburse him for a private plumbing bill relating to works to the mains water tap in 2019. There is no evidence that the resident raised this matter as a formal complaint until 9 August 2021. This matter is therefore outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
11. The resident has complained that it was unreasonable for the landlord to request the redirection of universal credit payments to offset alleged rent arrears. Whilst the Ombudsman may ordinarily investigate a complaint about the landlord’s administration of a resident’s rent account, this aspect of the complaint is out of time in accordance with paragraph 39(e). The evidence indicates that the issues occurred between March and August 2020, yet a formal complaint was not made until August 2021.

Landlord’s response to roof leak

12. The landlord’s Responsive Repairs Policy defines an Emergency Repair as including, ‘where there is major damage to the property’ or ‘flooding’. A repair may also be considered an emergency where, ‘a resident is vulnerable and carrying out the works will ensure that they are able to remain safely in their home due to their vulnerability’. Routine, or non-urgent, repairs are defined as works to rectify or prevent damage to the property. The policy defines a Vulnerable Person as someone ‘who if works were not completed for them there would be a significant impact on their physical or mental health that would lead to them being unable to remain in the property’.
13. The landlord has not provided a complete repairs record or details of reports from its contractors, and so the extent of the damage from the leak and the recommended repairs is unknown. Email correspondence indicates that the landlord did attend immediately to assess the roof leak, as the problem was affecting multiple flats, although it was 2 weeks before it inspected the resident’s property due to access issues. The initial action taken by the landlord was appropriate, although the lack of contemporaneous repairs records from the landlord’s visits is of concern.
14. On 15 July 2021 and 23 July 2021, the resident requested that an electrician attend to restore power at the property. There is no indication that he received a response. The landlord’s internal emails from 26 July 2021 note that residents affected by the leak would require an environmental clean and it was decided that this should be raised as a repair with the landlord’s contractor. It is not known if this clean took place.
15. The complaint responses suggest that at an inspection of the resident’s property on 27 July 2021, the landlord identified that works were required to address historic damp in the airing cupboard, to restore power following the leak, to adjust a door and provide a dehumidifier. It is not known what further works were recommended to address damage to the ceilings, walls and floors caused by the roof leak. The landlord stated in its complaint response that some works were completed on 24 August 2021 but in the absence of repairs records the Ombudsman cannot assess whether all works to the interior of the property were completed as promised and within a reasonable timeframe.
16. The landlord did progress further inspections of the roof and a permanent repair with its contractor. As scaffolding was required it was noted that this would take some time to complete, which was reasonable in the circumstances. It is not clear whether any temporary repairs were undertaken or whether the landlord took steps to ensure that there would be no further water penetration into the resident’s property.
17. The resident first requested a dehumidifier on 23 July 2021 and on 4 August 2021, stressed that he was unable to remain in the property as the damp was affecting his breathing. He asked that the landlord make an emergency appointment to deliver a dehumidifier. It is not known whether this was eventually provided but it was still outstanding at the date of the stage 1 complaint response sent on 23 September 2021. A delay in excess of 2 months from the first request was wholly unacceptable, particularly given the resident’s reported health concerns.
18. The landlord has stated that 2 surveyors deemed the resident’s property habitable, yet it has not provided any contemporaneous notes or reports from the surveyors’ visits. This means that the Ombudsman is unable to assess whether the landlord’s decision was reasonable and again raises concerns about the landlord’s record keeping. There is no evidence that the landlord considered the resident’s report that the damp conditions in the property were impacting his health. The landlord should have sought medical evidence from the resident and reviewed this to determine whether a temporary decant was appropriate. In line with the terms of the landlord’s repairs policy, the landlord should also have considered whether the resident met the definition of a vulnerable person, and whether repairs should be expedited as a result.
19. The Ombudsman has no authority to compel the resident to return the payments totalling £1,050 that were made to him in error. It was, however, reasonable for the landlord to refuse to compensate the resident from the flood victims fund, as it has explained that this fund was available to residents who were impacted by severe flooding, and not water penetration due to disrepair to the roof. The landlord also correctly advised the resident that compensation for damage to his belongings should be pursued through contents insurance. As the landlord does not admit liability for the damage, it is not obliged to offer compensation for damage to personal items.
20. The landlord’s communication with the resident about the repairs was poor. There is no evidence that a clear explanation was provided about what works were required and the likely timescale for completing repairs. It is not known what remedial works were required to the interior of the resident’s property and the lack of records provided to this investigation is of serious concern. The failure to keep clear and accurate records of the property’s repairs history is a significant contributing factor to the maladministration determination reached here. The landlord also failed to take into account the resident’s personal vulnerabilities when assessing whether the property was habitable, in breach of its policies and procedures.

Complaint handling

21. There was an excessive and unreasonable delay in the landlord providing a stage 1 response to the complaint. Under the landlord’s Complaints Policy, this should be provided within 10 working days. Although it was initially agreed between the parties that a response would be provided by 31 August 2021, it was not until 23 September 2021 that the resident received a substantive response, and only after escalating his concerns to his Housing Officer’s manager. The landlord offered £50 compensation for this failure however, a reasonable offer of redress given the extent of the delay in providing this response.
22. The resident complained about the actions of his Housing Officer, stating that they had been difficult to contact and had not taken his concerns seriously. The stage 1 complaint response was provided by the resident’s Housing Officer, which was inappropriate in the circumstances. The landlord’s Complaints Policy states that if a complaint concerns the resident’s Housing Officer, it will be handled by their manager. The landlord’s failure to have an independent person investigate this issue contributed to the resident’s desire to escalate the complaint and an adequate response to these concerns was not provided at stage 2.
23. The landlord’s complaints handling was poor, with some inaccuracies in the stage 1 response highlighted in the resident’s escalation request. This further increased his frustration and undermined his faith in the complaints process. The complaint response was overly focussed on insisting that the resident repay the £1,050 and missed an opportunity to provide reassurance and clarity to the resident on the progress of the repairs.
24. The Ombudsman considers that, overall, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaints handling, whilst its offer of compensation provided reasonable redress for the delay at stage one of the complaints process, a further amount of compensation is considered appropriate to reflect the additional failures identified here.

Determination

25. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to the roof leak that occurred at the resident’s property.
26. In accordance with paragraph 39(e) of the Scheme, the resident’s complaint about reimbursement of a private plumbing bill from 2019 is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
27. In accordance with paragraphs 39(e) of the Scheme, the resident’s complaint about the action taken by the landlord to recover rent arrears is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
28. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaints handling.

Orders

29. Within 28 days of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Pay the resident £400 in recognition of the failings identified in the landlord’s response to the roof leak at the resident’s property.
    2. Pay the resident £100 in recognition of the landlord’s poor complaints handling (including the £50 previously offered during the complaints process).
    3. Complete any outstanding works to the interior of the resident’s property and write to him to provide an update on the roof repairs if these have not yet been completed.
30. The landlord to evidence compliance with these orders to this Service within 28 days of this report.

Recommendations

31. It is recommended that the landlord:
    1. Re-offer the £180 already offered to the resident in the stage 2 complaint response in respect of the complaint about his private plumbing bill, if this has not yet been paid.
    2. Review its record keeping processes to ensure that clear and accurate records are kept of all actions taken in relation to a repair, including detailed reports by surveyors, operatives, and contractors.
    3. Provide training to staff to ensure that complaints are responded to by an appropriate person and within a reasonable timeframe.