Notting Hill Genesis (202117181)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202117181

Notting Hill Genesis

16 September 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 the landlord’s handling of:
    1. The resident’s reports of issues with the heating and hot water.
    2. The associated complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured shorthold tenant of the landlord.
  2. The resident reported she was experiencing issues with intermittent heating and hot water on 12 July 2021. An engineer attended on 19 July 2021 and reported that it was left working.
  3. The resident raised a complaint on 20 July 2021 as she stated after the contractor had attended the property, she had a total loss of heating and hot water for 48 hours. She asked for a different engineer to attend and to be decanted (temporarily moved) into a hotel until the issues were resolved.
  4. In the landlord’s final response to the complaint, it stated a new thermostat was installed on 26 November 2021, but the contractor deemed the heat interface unit (HIU) beyond repair. It stated that temporary accommodation and heating had been arranged and acknowledged these solutions should have been put in place earlier. It offered £270 compensation comprised of £41.70 for 15 days without heating and hot water, £120 for distress and inconvenience, £50 for the delay in arranging temporary solutions, £30 for complaint mismanagement and £27.30 for additional electric costs. In a separate complaint response, the landlord acknowledged the mishandling of the previous complaints and offered an additional £100 compensation. 
  5. Following completion of the complaint procedure, the landlord has advised this Service of its revised compensation offer, in which it offered an additional £250 for not offering temporary accommodation sooner and an additional £250 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the intermittent heating between July and November 2021. As a result, the total compensation offer was £870.
  6. In her complaint to this Service, the resident said she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of the repairs to the heating and hot water and its complaint handling. She did not think it was appropriate for the landlord to suggest using boiling water, in the absence of hot water in the property, due to her age and health conditions. She was also dissatisfied that the landlord had not decanted her and said that the landlord’s communication was poor.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the heating and hot water issues

  1. In accordance with the tenancy handbook, the landlord is responsible for repairs to the resident’s central heating, boiler and water heaters. The landlord’s repair policy states that emergency repairs should be completed within 24 hours and routine repairs should be completed within 20 working days. The policy states “a serious failure of heating or hot water in the property” is an example of an emergency repair. As a result, the landlord was responsible for investigating the resident’s reports of issues with heating and hot water and completing any necessary repairs.
  2. The landlord’s repair records show that the resident initially reported an issue with her heating and hot water on 12 July 2021. As the resident did not report a total loss of heating or hot water, it would not be classed as an emergency repair, although it would be expected to be regarded as urgent and to be prioritised accordingly. An engineer attended on 19 July 2021, cleaned the filter and ordered a new thermostat. The contractor reported that the issue was with the HIU filter and an appointment needed to be attended by the managing agent. The landlord therefore initially attended within its repair response timeframes and within a reasonable timescale for an urgent but not emergency repair.
  3. The landlord’s repair records showed that an appointment had been scheduled for 27 September 2021, however the required parts had not been delivered so the appointment was cancelled, and the resident was notified of this. In the landlord’s stage two complaint response, it also stated that further delays were experienced due to several missed and failed appointments. A new thermostat was installed on 26 October 2021, but the contractor had determined that the HIU was beyond repair and required replacement. The landlord’s repair records state that the HIU unit was fitted on 27 November 2021 and an electrician was required to attend to complete follow on work. The contractor was unable to gain access to the property on 29 November 2021 and the work was then completed on 30 November 2021. A post repair inspection took place on 20 December 2021 and the contractor rectified issues that the resident was experiencing with the radiators.
  4. Overall, there were clear delays in the completion of the work as the issue was initially reported on 12 July 2021 and was not resolved until 30 November 2021. Although the landlord should aim to adhere to its repair timeframes, there can be appropriate reasons for why the timeframes cannot always be met. In this case, it was reasonable that the repairs would have been delayed as the landlord was required to order additional parts. The issue also took several attempts to identify, as several repairs were attempted before the contractor determined the HIU required replacing. When there are appropriate reasons for why the landlord is unable to adhere to its repair timeframes, it should complete repairs as soon as possible, provide residents with regular updates and assess whether it can take interim measures such as providing temporary heaters until the repairs can be completed.
  5. In her complaint to this Service, the resident stated that the landlord’s communication regarding the repairs was poor. There is no evidence to suggest that the landlord provided any updates to the resident regarding the repairs, other than in its complaint responses. This meant that the resident had unnecessary involvement as she had to chase the repairs and repeatedly ask for temporary accommodation before receiving a response. The resident had also said to the landlord that she was co-ordinating correspondence between the landlord and the contractor. 
  6. In this case, given that the resident had intermittent heating, the landlord should have ensured that the resident was provided with temporary heaters until the issue was resolved. However, the resident was not provided with heaters until 27 October 2021, which was a significant delay. In its complaint response, the landlord acknowledged its omission to provide heaters at an earlier date and stated that it had reiterated to its contractors that heaters must be provided on the first instance of experiencing issues with heating. The landlord therefore demonstrated that it learned from the outcome of the complaint. The landlord had also recommended that the resident used the kettle to access hot water. While the resident did not find the suggestion practical, it demonstrated that the landlord considered temporary solutions whilst the resident waited for the hot water issues to be resolved. However, given that the resident had expressed her concerns on numerous occasions regarding the safety of boiling water using the kettle due to her vulnerabilities, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to assess the feasibility of the advice and to have considered other options such as temporary accommodation.
  7. The landlord did not acknowledge the resident’s several requests to be decanted until 12 October 2021, despite the resident initially requesting to be temporarily moved to a hotel on 20 July 2021. The landlord initially stated that it would not decant residents for loss of heating and hot water, which the resident disputed as she had been previously decanted for a similar issue in 2019. While it is understood that this would have frustrated the resident, we are unable to make a comparison, as the landlord’s decant policy may have changed due to the time elapsed since the previous issue and the Ombudsman does not have access to the exact details of the previous situation, which may have been different. However, it is the Ombudsman’s view that landlords should offer to decant residents if the resident is unable to stay in their property while it is awaiting repair. Although problems with heating and hot water would not generally mean residents needed to be decanted, some residents may need to be decanted in these circumstances if their health and/or vulnerabilities would mean they would be unable to stay in a property without adequate heating and hot water.
  8. The landlord then the emailed the resident on 27 October 2021, advising it had tried to contact her to arrange temporary accommodation in a hotel. It is unclear whether the resident accepted this offer. In the landlord’s correspondence to this Service, it stated that decant requests are assessed on a case by case basis, but acknowledged that the resident should not have needed to raise a complaint in order to receive a response on the issue.
  9. The landlord’s decant policy states that emergency decants are necessary when an event makes the property uninhabitable. In the landlord’s complaint review, it stated that the decant was not initially offered as the issue impacted the majority of the block of flats, not just the resident’s property. While it was reasonable that the landlord would have to assess the practicality and affordability of decanting, especially if the issue impacted numerous residents, this should not have been the only basis for the landlord’s decision as it can be the case that some residents need to be decanted due to their vulnerabilities but other residents affected by the same issues can safely remain in their properties with the provision of temporary heaters. It is unclear what the landlord’s criteria for a decant is or why it changed its decision regarding the decant, however, given that there is no evident change in circumstances since the resident’s initial request, it was appropriate that the landlord acknowledged that it should have offered alternative accommodation sooner. The landlord should assess its decant policy and consider implementing clearer guidelines in order to avoid similar delays in offering alternative accommodation in future cases.
  10. In line with this Service’s remedies guidance (published on our website), awards of £250 – £700 are appropriate in cases where the landlord has failed to act in line with its policies over a considerable period of time and when the resident has had to chase correction of mistakes. In this case, the landlord exceeded its repair timeframe to resolve the issues with heating and hot water, failed to assess the suitability of interim measures, had poor communication and failed to promptly provide temporary heaters or alternative accommodation.
  11. The landlord altered its compensation offer on 18 June 2022, several months after its stage two response to this complaint. It offered a total of £870, which included £370 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the intermittent heating between July 2021 and November 21, £250 for not offering temporary accommodation sooner, £41.70 for 15 days with total loss of heating and hot water, £50 for the delay in temporary solutions and £27.30 for the additional electric costs. The level of compensation for total loss of heating and hot water was in line with the landlord’s compensation policy which states the resident will be compensated 10% of their daily rent for each day without heating and hot water after the first 48 hours. As a result, the landlord has demonstrated that it had acknowledged and learned from its failings and offered an appropriate level of compensation, which is in line with this Service’s remedy guidance and its own compensation policy.
  12. It is acknowledged that the landlord should have made this offer sooner as part of its complaints process prior to intervention from this Service. As the landlord failed to do so, this is evidence of failings in its complaints handling which will be addressed in more detail below.

Complaint handling

  1. In accordance with the landlord’s complaint handling policy, the landlord should respond to stage one complaints within ten working days and stage two complaints within 20 working days. It states the stage two review will be carried out by a manager who has not been involved in the original decision. The resident initially raised a complaint on 20 July 2021. She then raised further complaints on 3 August 2021 and 18 August 2021 as she had not received any acknowledgement of her initial complaint and the landlord had incorrectly marked them as complete. In the landlord’s stage one response on 2 September 2021, it stated that the resident’s initial complaint was closed in error when reassigning it to the heating and hot water department to respond. In a further complaint response, the landlord said the second complaint had been closed due to an administrative error.
  2. The landlord issued a further stage one response on 15 September 2021, regarding the substantive issue of the heating and hot water. The overall time taken to issue a response was 57 working days, from when the complaint was initially raised, which significantly exceeded the landlord’s response timeframe. As the issue was ongoing, and there is no evidence that the resident was receiving other updates regarding the repair, the delay would have had a greater impact on the resident. The resident escalated her complaint on 3 October 2021 and the landlord issued its response on 8 November 2021, again slightly exceeding its response time, by five working days, although the delays were not as significant as at stage one. It was inappropriate that the landlord issued separate complaint responses to handle the issues with the hot water and the complaint handling; as the issues were directly related, it would have been best practice to manage the issues together in order to cause less time and effort to the resident in pursuing the complaint.
  3. The resident has raised to this Service that she was dissatisfied that the staff member who issued the stage one response was the same individual who had originally mishandled the complaint and she thought this was a conflict of interest. There is no evidence to suggest that the resident had complained about a specific staff member, until her complaint escalation on 2 September 2021. Although the staff member had issued the initial complaint response, further reviews were carried out by different people within the landlord’s organisation. While it would have been best practice for the landlord to have assigned a different staff member to issue the complaint, in order to ensure impartiality, the complaint was ultimately reviewed independently at a later stage in the complaints process. As a result, it is unlikely that the involvement of the staff member would have impacted the outcome of the complaint. Regardless of this, the landlord should ensure where possible in future complaints that it avoids potential issues with conflicts of interest by allocating complaint investigations to staff who have not previously been involved with the complaint issues.
  4. In line with this Service’s remedy guidance, awards of £50-£250 are appropriate in cases where the landlord has failed to meet standards for actions and responses but where the failure did not affect the overall outcome for the complainant. In this case, the resident had to raise numerous complaints before the landlord acknowledged the issue, the landlord issued separate complaint responses for the complaint handling and the substantive issue and there were significant delays in issuing the stage one response regarding the substantive issue. The landlord offered a total of £100 for incorrectly closing the resident’s first two complaints and an additional £30 for complaint mismanagement.
  5. Although the landlord has compensated for its failings in incorrectly closing down the complaints, it has not acknowledged the impact of the additional failings outlined in this report. It has therefore not shown that it has considered the additional time and effort caused to the resident in pursuing the separate complaints or the impact of the substantial delay in its stage one complaint response regarding the heating and hot water, which delayed the implementation of temporary measures while the issue was ongoing. The landlord should therefore award the resident an additional £100 compensation in light of the additional failings, in line with this Service’s remedies guidance. The landlord should also review its staff training requirements regarding complaint handling, specifically assigning complaints to ensure that future complaints don’t get closed before the resident receives a response.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 55 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the complaint regarding its handling of the resident’s reports of issues with the heating and hot water.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in the way it handled the associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident an additional £100 due to the additional complaint handling failures outlined in this report.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord pays the resident the £870 compensation offered previously through its complaints process, unless this has already been paid.
  2. It is recommended that the landlord review’s its staff training requirements regarding complaint handling.
  3. It is recommended that the landlord reviews its decant policy and considers implementing more specific guidelines concerning the factors which will affect the landlord’s decision whether or not to decant a resident during repairs.