Notting Hill Genesis (202105526)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202105526

Notting Hill Genesis

17 August 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

This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. reports of a pest infestation and the associated repairs
2. reports of dampness in the property
3. the related complaint

Background and summary of events

The resident has an assured tenancy with the housing association.
The property is described as a two bedroom flat on the first floor.
The resident has informed us that his daughter has medical conditions which is exacerbated by the presence of dust.
The tenancy agreement obliges the landlord to carry out repairs as defined in Section 11 of the landlord and tenant Act 1985 and those defined in its repair policy.

Policies

The landlord’s pest control procedure states that in the first instance it will establish whether it is a new or reoccurring problem. If it is a new report, the eradication of the pest is the resident’s responsibility or it can supply the pest control service and recharge the cost to the resident.

If within three months of treatment being carried out and the situation is caused by a structural problem, it will arrange for a surveyor to visit to determine the work that is required.

The landlord’s responsive repairs policy sets out the landlord’s repair priorities. Emergency repairs will be concluded between four hours and routine repairs within 20 working days. The landlord is responsible for the structure of the property including the inside walls, floors and ceiling and for pest control in communal areas.
The landlord has a controlling condensation and mould booklet which advises that dampness can be caused by excessive condensation. It recommends that to manage condensation residents improve ventilation, open windows to circulate air and reduce moisture. In addition, that properties are heated to an adequate temperature.
The landlord’s guide to moving home provides information on the different ways of finding alternative accommodation, such as home swapper, or using its transfer scheme. It advises that 24 residents who were given Band A priority were able to move using the scheme.
The landlord’s complaint procedure available on its website states that it operates a two stage complaint procedure. Complaints are resolved within 10 working days at its first stage and within 20 working days at its second stage.
The landlord’s compensation and good will policy sets out how it will calculate awards of compensation and gestures of good will for failures in its service delivery. It states that in exceptional circumstances, it will offer an award of compensation to enable its residents to resolve an issue within the property rather than it carry out the repair. The compensation and good will policy excludes payments for loss of earnings.

Scope of investigation

The resident has advised that he has been reporting to his landlord since 2012 that the property had a pest infestation, that the property was damp and that these issues had contributed to his daughter’s ill health. This investigation has had sight of evidence that confirms the resident reported damp patches in 2014 and a pest problem in 2017. However, this investigation will, focus on events from January 2020 onwards, the year before the resident made a formal complaint in to the landlord about the pest infestation and dampness in the property.
This is on the basis of the what the Ombudsman considers a reasonable period in light of the provisions of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme and considering the available evidence. It should be noted that all of the evidence provided has been considered and any reference to historical matters are for context only.
The resident has provided medical letters regarding his daughter’s health and that her allergy to dust has been made worse by her living conditions. It should be noted that whilst the resident had advised of the adverse impact to his daughter, the Ombudsman cannot draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing . This would be more usually dealt with as a personal injury claim through the courts.

Summary of events

The resident has complained that the landlord had failed to resolve a mouse infestation and dampness within his property.
The landlord’s records show that:
A report of the mice infestation was made in January and February 2020 to the landlord. The resident advised that the mice were accessing his property from the communal area. In response, the landlord advised in January 2020 that the resident was responsible for the eradication of the pest and on the second occasion that it would arrange for someone to contact him.
The resident contacted the landlord on 13 May 2020 to report that the dampness in the property was affecting his daughter’s eczema and that he was experiencing an increase in the mice infestation in the property.
The resident contacted the landlord on 8 June 2020 to report that its contractor had not attended to fill the access points in the kitchen regarding the mice infestation and to inspect the damp within the property. He advised that the appointments regarding the inspection of the damp had been cancelled on two previous occasions and that the mice infestation was increasing.
The landlord’s record show that on 19 June 2020, the resident advised that he had used foam to close the access points but the mice had chewed through the foam. He also advised that the mice had chewed through the wall board in the bathroom.
The resident contacted the landlord on 15 July 2020 to advise that its contractor had attended to close the access points in the bathroom and kitchen, however the mice were still accessing the property.
The resident contacted the landlord on 12 August 2020 to advise that following the visit from pest control the previous week, he was expecting contact from his housing officer regarding an appointment with regard to the mice infestation but no one had been in contact. The resident expressed that his housing officer kept changing, which meant he had to continually repeat the reason for his call.
On 18 August 2020, the resident communicated with the landlord to advise that pest control had attended his property, completed reports, however, he still had a mice infestation in his property. In addition, pest control had advised that he needed to move before the work could be completed and that due to the Covid 19 pandemic he was spending more time inside and was seeing more mice within the property. In response, the landlord advised that his housing officer was waiting for an update from the pest control contractor.
The resident chased the landlord on 16 September 2020 regarding the mice infestation in the property.

The resident contacted the landlord on 26 October 2020 to chase the outcome of a surveyors report following its visit two months earlier as pest control had attended and removed the kick board in the kitchen and there was evidence of mice droppings. In addition, the resident advised that there were a family of seven living in a two bedroom property and the previous housing officer was aware of this.

The landlord responded on 4 November 2020 apologising for the delay in the response explaining they had been away from work. It advised that its contractor would attend to remove the kick board in the kitchen and then pest control would attend to fill any holes and put down bait in the kitchen. Once pest control had attended, it would arrange for the contractor to reattend to replace the kick board. It sent its transfer form to the resident.
In response, on the same day 4 November 2020, the resident sent the landlord a picture of a hole in the wall in the property. It advised that the rest of the property should be checked for the presence of a mice infestation and that his reports of pests, damp and mould were unresolved. In addition, he advised that he had a child that needed to be added to his household composition on his tenancy.
The resident chased the landlord for its response on 18 November 2020 regarding the outstanding work to resolve the mice infestation.
The landlord chased its contractor and pest control on 26 November 2020 to enquire whether they had made contact with the resident to arrange a convenient appointment to remove the kick board in the kitchen and bait the property.
On 26 November 2020, the landlord also emailed the resident to apologise for the delay in its reply. It advised that it had chased its contractor regarding the removal of the kick board in the kitchen to enable pest control to attend to bait the kitchen. In addition, it had arranged for a surveyor to attend the resident’s property and would also chase the surveyor regarding his attendance. With regard to his request for rehousing, it advised that it required the birth certificate for his youngest child, that it did not have any four bedroom properties available and advised that larger properties were rarely available.
On 2 December 2020, the landlord’s records shows that:
1. It chased the contractor regarding his attendance at the resident’s property to remove the kick boards in the kitchen
2. It received the birth certificate from the resident
3. The resident advised that neither the contractor nor pest control had been in contact to arrange a convenient appointment.
The landlord’s records show that it chased the contractor on 17 December 2020 and on 13 January 2021 to establish whether it had contacted the resident to arrange the appointment to remove the kick board in the kitchen.
The resident complained to the landlord on 14 January 2021 about the mouse infestation, quality of the repair works carried out in his property and that there was damp and mould within the property. He expressed that the landlord had told him that the pest control was his responsibility, the dampness had not been treated but painted over and he had experienced poor communication with missed appointments from the surveyor. In addition, there was damage to the kitchen units under the sink, poor tiling in the bathroom and mice droppings within the property. He requested compensation and for the property to be bought up to a suitable standard. The resident provided pictures of the property.
The landlord requested that its contractor quote for the schedule of works on 25 January 2021:
1. Kitchen – Remove base units and mice proof the floor; seal proof edges and entry points perimeters with wire wool and fine mesh ; Refit the existing units and allow for the plumbing back to taps and waste pipes; Renew all plinths; Allow for any renewal of damaged hardboard backs; paint walls, ceiling in kitchen.
2. Bedrooms/living room – Run thin plastic UPVC profiles around edge of window reveals/sill to help combat condensation.
3. Bedroom -renew a length of quadrant bead where chewed by mice
The resident provided a medical letter dated 1 February 2021 regarding the resident’s daughter. It outlines that she has allergies, sensitisation to dust mites and Cladosporium.
The landlord responded to the complaint on 11 February 2021. It referenced a recent inspection by its surveyors and its key findings were:
1. It set out the schedule of works for the kitchen, bathroom and living room and agreed to undertake repairs around the bathroom sink and make good that area
2. Once the pest control works were concluded, the pest infestation should be eliminated. It agreed to instruct its pest control team to bait any additional area in the property that required attention
3. Acknowledged that appointments had been missed, or not completed as a first time fix, which caused further inconvenience to the resident and his family. In addition, works had not been carried out to a satisfactory standard.
4. Apologised that the resident had experienced occasions when he had not been informed of changed or cancelled appointments. It acknowledged that the resident had been affected by the organisational changes and that the resident had not been informed of the changes that had taken place.
5. Its surveyor had confirmed that there was no mould present in the property. However, there was condensation due to lifestyle and it had agreed to supply a dehumidifier and advised the resident to keep the property ventilated by keeping the windows open.
6. It had received his transfer application and would actively look for a larger property as the family were overcrowded. However, larger properties were not usually available but it would contact him if one became available.
7. It offered an award of compensation of £600, broken down as: £150 for missed appointments; £250 for the stress and inconvenience experienced by the resident and his family; £200 as a good will payment.
The landlord’s repair records show a variation works order on 23 February 2021 for the resident’s property to:
1. remove the base unit in the kitchen and mice proof, seal proof edges and entry points with wire wool
2. apply felt to the existing base unit and renew all the plinths in the kitchen
3. run thin plastic UPVC profiles around the edge of the bedroom/living room windows.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 26 February 2021 to advise he was dissatisfied with the complaint response and provided the following reasons:
1. the repairs remain outstanding and had been ongoing for the past eight years.
2. He had experienced pest infestation since 2012 with mice dropping on his children’s bed and inside his baby’s cot and that the landlord had advised that he was responsible for eradication when the cause related to works that the landlord was responsible for.
3. Its surveyor had attended regarding the damp/condensation in the property in 2014, recommended the insertion of profiles around the edge of the UPVC window reveals and sills and the surveyor had not returned, neither had the work been carried out
4. The damp/condensation in the property resulted from overcrowding as there were two adults and five children living in a two bedroom flat
5. The statutory nuisance had led to a deterioration in his daughter’s health.
6. He requested compensation for personal injury of £7,847.16.
The landlord’s records show that on 10 March 2021:
1. It chased the contractor regarding the date that the works to the kitchen and windows to the bedroom and living room would commence.
2. It confirmed the resident that it could not agree to the compensation request and would escalate the complaint to the next stage of the complaint procedure.
The landlord’s records show that the work to the kick boards in the kitchen and the bedroom and living room window reveals and sills were booked to start on 22 March 2021 and was programmed to take between 1-2 days
The landlord’s records show that the work to the kick boards in the kitchen and bedroom and living room window reveals was completed on 7 April 2021.
The resident chased the complaint response on 12 April 2021.
On 15 April 2021, the landlord’s records show that
1. The resident had reported that the work to the kitchen and bedroom and living room windows reveals and sills had been carried out to a poor standard.
2. The resident chased the complaint response.
On 16 April 2021,the landlord’s records show that its contractors carried out the following additional works
1. Bedroom – wash down area of mould stain block two meters in corner cold wall. Paint walls with an anti-mould washable paint
2. Bathroom – tidy tiling around the wash basin where pierced in 2 sqm
3. Kitchen –renew three base unit shelves and ensure the new shelves are fitted on battens or brackets
4. Snagging – replace the cracked tile above worktop
The landlord inspected the resident’s property on 16 April 2021 and concluded that the majority of the works carried out to the kitchen, bathroom and bedroom and living room window reveals were fine. However, it had agreed that the tiling in the bathroom and the installation of a shelf to a kitchen unit had been fitted badly. It had agreed as a good will gesture to paint with anti mould paint an area in the bedroom.
On 22 April 2021, the resident chased the landlord for its complaint response. In response, the landlord apologised for the delay and that the complaint response should be concluded the following day.
The landlord’s records note on 27 April 2021 that the resident did not want the contractor to return to complete the snagging work.
The resident chased the complaint response on 27 April 2021, 28 April 2021, 11 May 2021. In response, the landlord explained that the delay resulted from operational changes with the lead manager changing roles and that additional information had to be supplied for the complaint response to be completed.
The resident contacted this Service on 3 June 2021 to complain that he had been waiting for his complaint response since 10 March 2021. This Service wrote to the landlord on 21 June 2021 requesting that it supply its complaint response to the resident’s concerns.
The landlord provided its final complaint response on 23 June 2021. Its key findings were:
1. It had visited the resident’s property the previous day and agreed to increase his rehousing banding to Band A to facilitate a move.
2. It would make a direct offer of a three bedroom property, if it became available
3. It would make a compensation award of £200 to enable the resident to complete the outstanding repairs
4. It reviewed the compensation awarded at Stage 1 and increased the overall compensation award to £1000. This was broken down with the £600 award increased to £750; £200 for the resident to carry out the repairs to the kitchen and £50 for the delay in providing the complaint response.
5. It apologised for the level of service that the resident had received.
The resident emailed the landlord on 28 June 2021 to advise that he had accepted the landlord offer to increase his rehousing banding but he did not accept the offer of financial compensation. He expressed that the compensation award did not take into account, the delay in getting the repairs addressed, stress experienced by him and his family, missed and cancelled appointments and the impact on his daughter’s health. He advised that his preferred outcome to resolve the complaint was for the compensation to be increased to £3000 and for £200 for the outstanding repairs.
The landlord responded on 29 June 2021 that whilst it appreciated the resident’s frustration, it could not increase the compensation offer to £3000. The award of £1000 compensation was at the higher end of its compensation policy and provided the resident with a copy. In addition, the landlord advised that:
1. it would pay the £200 compensation that the resident had accepted.
2. that the property was free of damp and that the light mould markings were due to condensation. The landlord recommended that the resident ventilate the property and apply a light bleach/eater solution on the affected area due to the number of occupants in the property.
3. it would agree a transfer to a three bedroom property and that in light of his particular situation it had increased the rehousing priority to a Band A.
The resident remained dissatisfied and escalated his complaint to this service on 29 June 2021. He expressed that the landlord was trying to “brush the complaint under the carpet” and that his daughter’s health had deteriorated due to the living condition. In addition, the landlord had failed to complete the repairs in his property and ss a result of the missed appointments, he had lost pay. Furthermore, the landlord had failed to resolve the pests in this property that he had reported since 2012.
The landlord contacted the resident on 26 November 2021 advising that since his complaint, there had been a merger and consequently operational changes had occurred with officers having the flexibility to work with different contractors. It also advised of closer working relationships between housing management, asset management department and contractors.
In addition, it provided clarity regarding the award of £1000 compensation that had been paid. This was assessed as £750 for distress, hardship, inconvenience and delay experienced by the resident over the years; £50 for its delay in providing its stage two complaint response and £200 to enable him to acquire his own contractor to carry out the repair to the kitchen.

Assessment and findings

The Ombudsman’s role is to assess whether the landlord has followed its procedures and acted appropriately. It is acknowledged that the pest infestation was a source of distress for the resident and his family. This assessment will consider the landlord’s handling of the substantive matters and the formal complaint and consider whether its responses were reasonable in all the circumstances of the case. Taking into account its policies and its obligations under the tenancy agreement and any relevant legislation.

report of a pest infestation and the associated repairs

The landlord’s pest control procedure states that in the first instance the eradication of a mice infestation is the responsibility of the resident and that if the substantive cause relates to the structure of the building, it will arrange for a surveyor to visit to determine the work that is required,
Looking at the available information, there is evidence that the resident had been reporting the mice infestation at the property to the landlord for some time. The evidence also shows that the resident experienced delays in getting the landlord to respond to his concerns in June 2020, July 2020 and August 2020 regarding the contractor attending to fill the entry points that the mice were using and getting the surveyor to carry out an inspection of his property. This was not reasonable as whilst its pest control policy states that in the first instance the eradication of mice is the resident’s responsibility, the resident experienced an unreasonable delay in getting the landlord to landlord to take the appropriate action to inspect, fill and bait the access points that the mice were using.
The landlord in its complaint responses has accepted that the resident experienced delays in its surveyor attending and acknowledged that the communication between its contractor and pest control in November 2020 and January 2021 could have been better which would have enabled the works to have been concluded earlier.
Following the attendance by its surveyor in January 2021, the landlord took appropriate action by drawing up a schedule of works to carry out works to the resident’s kitchen, bathroom and bedroom to address the mice infestation. A variation works order was produced in February 2021 to remove the base unit in the kitchen and mice proof, seal proof edges and entry points with wire wool. This was to close the access points used by the mice. The landlord’s repair policy states that routine repairs are to be completed within 20 working days of the landlord raising the variation order on 23 February 2021. There was therefore a delay of over two weeks in the works being completed on 7 April 2021. There is no evidence of further reports of mice infestation which suggests that the works carried out have been successful in preventing the mice accessing the property.
The resident informed the landlord that he was unhappy with the quality of work carried out by its contractor and advised that he did not want the contractor to reattend to complete the repair to the cracked kitchen tile. The landlord inspected the property on 16 April 2021 to assess the standard of the work carried out by the contractor. The landlord agreed with the resident’s assessment that the repair to the kitchen tile was not of a satisfactory standard. In accordance with its compensation procedure, the landlord was resolution focused as it took the resident’s concerns into account when it made a compensation award of £200 for the resident to carry out this repair. This offer accepted that the resident did not want the contractor to return to his property and as the repair was minor, it could be carried out by the resident.
The landlord has explained to the resident that during the period of the complaint it was going through organizational change. As a result, managers changed roles and impacted on the resident receiving a response to their escalated complaint.
The landlord in its final complaint response increased the compensation award to £750 in recognition for its service failures and offered £200 for the resident to arrange for the cracked tile to the kitchen to be replaced. The resident declined the compensation award of £750 advising that it did not adequately represent the distress, inconvenience and impact on his daughter. The resident accepted the compensation award of £200.
In considering whether or not the landlord’s offer of compensation is reasonable, the Ombudsman has taken into account the landlord’s compensation policy, and this Services own Dispute Resolution Principles ( be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes) and our published Remedies Guidance.
In particular, the Remedies Guidance explains that where there has been service failures by the landlord, if the landlord has recognised the failures itself and taken appropriate action to put this right, including offering reasonable compensation, then the Ombudsman will not necessarily require that the landlord do anything more. One of the factors that the Ombudsman considers is whether the redress is proportionate to the severity of the service failure by the landlord.
The landlord has accepted that its service provision could have been better with regards to its communication with the resident and its coordination between its contractor and with pest control. The landlord has acted appropriately by recognizing the service failures, apologising to the resident and making an award of compensation. The remedies guidance states that compensation awards of £700 and above are appropriate when there has been a significant and serious long term effect on the resident, including physical or emotional impact. In the Ombudsman’s view, the offer of compensation recognises the landlord’s delays in resolving the pest control to the resident’s property and the award of compensation represents proportionate and reasonable redress for this.

reports of dampness in the property

The resident informed the landlord in October 2020 that he had a new child and in November 2020, advised that he had made previous reports of damp and mould that had remain unaddressed.
The landlord surveyor visited the resident’s property in January 2021 and in its complaint response it confirmed that there was no mould present in the property. This was appropriate action to take as it had a responsibility to keep the structure and exterior of the property in repair and to ensure that the resident was living in a warm and safe environment.
The landlord assessed that the property was overcrowded and that the resident was experiencing condensation resulting from the number of people living in the property. It recommended that the resident ventilate the property and use a mould wash to manage the amount of condensation in the property. This was in accordance with its advice on managing condensation and mould.
The landlord took action to remedy the condensation present in the property by carrying out work in the resident’s bedroom and bathroom In April 2021. These works were to wash down area of mould stain block two meters in corner cold wall and paint walls with an anti-mould washable paint in the bedroom. These were appropriate actions to take as the landlord has assessed that the property is overcrowded and that the number of occupants using the property is likely to cause excess moisture and the works enabled the resident to manage amount of condensation in the property.
The landlord’s surveyor arranged a works order to run thin plastic UPVC profiles around edge of window reveals/sill to help combat condensation around 25 January 2021. This was completed on 7 April 2021. There was a significant delay in completing the repair as its repair priorities states that the repair would be concluded in 20 working days and the resident had to wait in excess of 50 days for the repair to be carried out.
The landlord in its complaint response acknowledged the overcrowding in the property and awarded the highest housing priority and agreed to award the highest priority Band A and to actively look for a larger property for the resident to move to alternative accommodation. The landlord apologised for the delay experienced in getting the window reveals and sills resolved and as indicated above awarded an overall compensation award of £750 for the inconvenience, distress, delay experienced by the resident.

The related complaint.

The landlord complaint procedure says that it will respond to complaints within 10 working days at the first stage of the complaint procedure and within 20 working days at the final stage of the complaint procedure.
The resident complained to the landlord on 14 January 2021 regarding the pest infestation, repairs and dampness in the property. The landlord responded to the complaint on 11 February 2021, outside its published time frame. The landlord did not offer an apology for its delay nor consider whether an award of compensation was appropriate which was a short coming.
The resident escalated the complaint on 10 March 2021 and the landlord issued its final stage response on 23 June 2021. In its complaint response, it apologised and offered a compensation award of £50 for its delay and not acting in accordance with the timescales outlined in its complaints procedure. This was appropriate in acknowledging and recognizing the delay experienced by the resident especially as he had to chase the complaint response.
After the complaint process, the landlord has explained that during the process of the complaint, it was going through a merger which had affected its performance. It advised of the operational changes that had taken place with better collaboration between its housing management, asset management teams and its contractors and that officers had greater flexibility regarding the choice of contractors.
The landlord assessed that the resident was entitled to an overall compensation award of £1000. The compensation award included a compensation award of £50 for its late stage two complaint response, which was reasonable given that it had taken around four months to respond to the complaint at its final stage.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 55 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress by the landlord in its handling of the report of a pest infestation and the associated repairs
In accordance with paragraph 55 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress by the landlord in its handling of the reports of dampness in the property
In accordance with paragraph 55 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress by the landlord in its handling of related complaint.

Reasons

The landlord has recognised that it delayed in resolving the pest infestation to the resident’s home including getting the requisite repairs carried out to enable pest control to attend to bait the resident’s home. It has apologised and offered an award of compensation for this.
The landlord has assessed that there is condensation in the resident’s property, caused by overcrowding. It has agreed the highest rehousing priority for the resident, however, there were delays in installing the UPVC profiles around the window reveals and sills to manage the condensation.
The landlord has recognised that there were delays responding to the resident’s complaint, explained the context it was operating in, apologised and made an offer of compensation for the delay in providing its complaint response. It has advised of the operational changes it has made to its service delivery.