Notting Hill Genesis (202200330)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202200330

Notting Hill Genesis

18 October 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:
   1. Handling of the resident’s reports of issues with her bedroom windows.
   2. Complaint handling.

Background

2. The resident is a tenant of the landlord. The property is a second floor flat.
3. On 27 May 2021, following a report from the resident on around 18 May 2021, that her bedroom windows were faulty, the landlord’s contractor (Contractor A) inspected the windows at the resident’s property. In a report provided to the landlord on 1 June 2021. The operative reported that he had re-fitted parts which had originally been fitted incorrectly but the window was still not working correctly and that the windows should be used as little as possible as there was a safety concern. He said the windows could not be properly closed and locked and there were large gaps around them. He said the work he had carried out made the windows usable only in the tilt position but should only be considered a temporary measure. He said the tilt and turn window frames in both bedrooms were in “bad condition” to the point where he had “concerns about the safety of them”. He said missing screws in the frames could not just be replaced as the windows were in such bad condition there was nothing to screw them to.
4. Contractor A said it had contacted a supplier that specialised in tilt and turn window mechanisms but they had said the system was obsolete and was never produced for the UK market, therefore there were no UK suppliers. The suppliers ha advised there was no suitable alternative mechanism that could be used and even if there was, the condition of the frames meant it may not be advisable in any case. The contractor said that the weight of the windows, along with the problem it had described meant it had some safety concerns. It said “To be clear, if the top hinge comes away from the frame altogether, the window will fall. Currently this does not appear to be an immediate concern but if the windows are left in this condition and the resident continues to battle with them…the hinges may continue to loosen.” It said the resident was aware of this and had left the windows locked to limit operation to tilt only as necessary. The operative said in his opinion there was no economically viable option to repair the windows and that they should be assessed with a view to replacing both the outer frame and sash, which was a service his company did not offer.
5. On 2 June 2021 the landlord referred the contractor’s report to its asset management team. On 10 and 15 June 2021 the resident emailed the landlord for an update on the window repair and on 15 June 2021 the landlord said that she was awaiting a reply from the asset team. On 23 June 2021 the landlord referred the repair to a second contractor (Contractor B). Contractor B inspected the windows on 30 July 2021.On 20 and 22 September 2021 the resident emailed the landlord for an update and attached photographs of the windows as she had safety concerns about them. (the Ombudsman has not been provide with these emails).Following contact from the landlord the contractor provided it with a report on 23 September 2021, which said that the windows’ tilt and turn mechanisms needed to be replaced but as the parts were obsolete it would require fitting an alternate type which may limit the operation. It said it would not be able to confirm whether the tilt and turn function would operate until it started the repairs and that it was “unable to provide guarantee on the repairs.”
6. On 8 October 2021 the resident emailed the landlord and advised that Contractor B had informed her that it was awaiting payment to be authorised by the landlord before they could proceed with the work. The landlord authorised the work order for Contractor B on 21 October 2021. On 16 November 2021 the resident raised a complaint as she said the repairs had not been carried out, and that she had been trying to convey that the windows were unsafe since September 2021 and that despite her providing photographs the landlord had done nothing to secure the safety of the window. She said the cold weather meant the window was becoming a health concern as well as a financial concern due to heating costs. She requested that the repair be chased with the Asset Team or Contractor B as a matter of urgency. The landlord replied that day to say it understood the “safety implications of the current state of the window” and that Contractor B was aware of the urgency of the matter and were awaiting parts, that they were hard to source and would contact the resident once the parts had arrived. The landlord agreed to contact Contractor B for an update the following week. 
7. The landlord provided the stage one complaint response on 30 November 2021, in which it acknowledged that the repair was taking longer than the landlord’s repairs procedure stated, and apologised for that. The landlord also acknowledged that the resident should have been kept updated about the delay. It said it would contact the contractor weekly and provide updates to the resident and would refer the case to the asset team if the contractor was unable to get the required parts, and would inform the resident if that was the case. It confirmed that once the work was completed, the resident would be compensated for the inconvenience caused.
8. The resident responded the same day to say she was not satisfied that the security to her property and the safety of the windows had not been acknowledged or treated as a matter of urgency. She said if her only option was to await parts, then the property needed to be made secure and the window made safe and boarded up. The landlord said it would arrange for the window to be boarded up urgently. The resident escalated her complaint as she said it should have been done in September 2021 when she sent in pictures of the window. The landlord attended the resident’s property that day to board up the window. However, its repair log for the visit says “No way to board the window up as too close to the wall. Had to remove top hinge and carry window back in place and lock. Window is now safe and locked, tenants know not to open. Have also taped up all edged to stop the draught and cold coming in as window is not fully sealed”.
9. The landlord emailed the resident twice in December 2021 to confirm Contractor B was still awaiting parts, before emailing her on 7 January 2022 to say it was expecting the parts to arrive 10 January 2022. In its stage two complaint response, on 14 January 2022 the landlord apologised for the delays. It said that the repair should have been completed within 20 working days. It confirmed some parts were due that week but others were due week commencing 24 January 2022. It said the contractor would be completing the repair on 11 February 2022 which would be nine months from when the resident first reported it. It said the case had highlighted the need for better communication and proactivity for repairs that involved obsolete parts including the need to ensure where necessary, that routine repairs were referred to the assets team at the earliest opportunity, regular update requests from suppliers were diarised and residents were updated. It awarded total compensation of £350, comprised of: £50 for the delay in sourcing a contractor, parts and completing the repair (which it said was the maximum it could award under the right to repair), £100 maximum discretionary payment for inconvenience and distress of medium impact, and £200 goodwill gesture for the six-month delay in making the window safe and for “shortcomings in the way it delivered its service”, specifically updates from the landlord which should have been given on a regular basis.
10. The landlord has also provided this Service with another manager’s feedback that was provided to the investigating manager during the stage two complaint investigation. Their feedback said that it was not clear how the repair was going to be resolved, as Contractor A had said the parts could not be found or replaced yet contractor B had said they could but had given no indication of when that would happen and that Contractor B had also “caveated their quote that a repair might not work”. They said as it was not clear if the resident had been made aware of this and said “I think we should make the customer aware because otherwise expectations may not be aligned, which could result in a further complaint if the repair fails when parts are sourced.” This was not included in the stage two complaint response and there is no evidence of the landlord advising the resident of this.
11. Contractor B attended the property on 24 February 2022 and told the resident that the windows would need to be replaced and it would send a report to the landlord.  The resident informed the landlord. The resident contacted this Service on 20 April 2022 as the windows had still not been repaired and the landlord had told her it could not provide Contractor B’s report from their February 2022 visit as it had not received it yet. The resident also raised concerns that her stage two complaint response had been issued by the line manager of a member of staff she had complained about, rather than an independent manager. She said the outcome she sought was for the windows in both bedrooms to be replaced urgently.
12. This Service contacted the landlord three times to request further information (on 31 August 2022,15 September and 27 September 2022) including confirmation of whether the windows had been repaired or replaced and if so, the date the work was completed. Despite these repeated requests, although the landlord provided the other requested information, it failed to provide confirmation of whether the windows had been repaired or replaced. However, the resident has informed this Service, that the contractor attended on 16 September 2022 to replace the windows but was unable to complete the work as he was unaware that the window vents would need to be replaced too and had to source the correct sized vents. Therefore, the contractor returned and completed the work on 28 September 2022.

Assessment and findings

13. When the resident reported problems with her windows in May 2021 the landlord responded appropriately by arranging for Contractor A to inspect the windows. When Contractor A’s operative reported that he had safety concerns about the windows and that he believed they should be assessed with a view to replacing them rather than repairing them, it was reasonable that the landlord referred this to its asset management team as replacing the windows would be more expensive than repairing them and the landlord has a limited budget to work within, and therefore it was appropriate that the landlord decided to seek a second opinion from another contractor, in order to explore other options before it committed to replacing the windows.
14. However, given the safety concerns that Contractor A had raised, and the fact that it had highlighted that the action they had taken should only be considered a temporary measure, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have inspected the windows urgently to ensure they were safe and secure before deciding whether to replace them. This was particularly important as Contractor A had described there being large gaps around the windows and had expressed concern that, as the frame was in such a poor condition, if it worsened in the future, the windows could fall out. The property is a second floor flat so if the windows were to fall out from the second floor, there would be a potential health and safety risk to members of the public, as well as to the resident and her family. It took approximately a month for the landlord to make its decision to approach Contractor B and a further month before Contractor B inspected the windows on 30 July 2021 and the landlord failed to inspect the windows during that time period to ensure that they were safe. This was not acceptable.
15. Once Contractor B had inspected the windows on 30 July 2021, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have asked Contractor B for the report of its findings, confirmed that the windows were safe and secure and provided the resident with regular updates of the actions it would be taking to repair or replace the windows. However, the landlord failed to do any of the above. The landlord’s failures meant that the resident had to contact the landlord herself in September 2021 to ask for an update and provided photographs of the windows in an attempt to explain the safety concerns she had about them. Although the landlord has not provided this Service with the emails, the landlord has not disputed the fact that it received them. Therefore, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have acknowledged the resident’s concerns and ensured that the windows were safe. However, again it failed to do so.
16. Once the landlord received the report from Contractor B on 23 September 2021 (of  its inspection on 30 July 2021). Contractor B had explained that the original parts were obsolete and that it would not know if a repair using alternative parts would work until it attempted it, and that it could not guarantee the repairs. Therefore, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have enquired whether the alternative parts could be sourced promptly, and how long the repair was likely to take and considered whether replacement might offer a better, safer solution under the circumstances. The landlord has not provided any evidence of such a discussion taking place. Once the landlord had made its decision to proceed with the repairs, as the resident had raised safety concerns about the windows since Contractor B’s visit in July 2021, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have inspected the windows to ensure they were safe. However, it failed to do so. It would also have been appropriate for it to have authorised the work promptly and kept the resident updated. However, the landlord failed to do this either, and this resulted in the resident contacting Contractor B herself on 8 October 2021, and then having to contact the landlord to inform it that contractor B was awaiting payment authorisation before it could proceed. The landlord should then have authorised payment promptly. However, it failed to do so and payment was not authorised until 21 October 2021. Once the landlord had authorised payment it  to have provided the should have provided the resident with regular updates about when the contractor would action the repairs, and to have ensured the window was safe in the meantime. However, the landlord failed to do so.
17. When the resident raised her complaint on 16 November 2021 and explained that the windows had still not been repaired, and that she had been trying to convey her concerns about their safety since September 2021, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have inspected the windows and made sure they were safe and secure as a matter of urgency. However, again it failed to do so. When the landlord issued its stage one complaint response on 30 November 2021, although it took appropriate steps to acknowledge and apologise for the delay in the work being actioned, and to confirm that it would compensate the resident once the window repairs were completed, it failed to address her concerns about the safety of the windows. As a result of its failing, the resident was obliged to escalate her complaint and explained to the landlord that the window needed to be made safe and boarded up urgently. (The landlord’s complaint handling will be assessed further in the complaint handling section of this report).
18. Once the resident had reiterated the safety concerns she had, the landlord took appropriate steps to arrange for the window to be made safe and boarded up that day. However, as it had been made aware of the aware of the safety concerns by Contractor A six months earlier, and the resident had raised her own concerns and sent photographs of the windows two months earlier, the delay in doing this was unreasonable by any standards. It is noted that although the operative who attended was not able to board up the windows, he did confirm that he had taken appropriate steps to make them safe by locking them into position, taping up the gaps around the edges and instructing the resident not to attempt to open them.
19. In its stage two complaint response on 14 January 2022, the landlord took appropriate steps to acknowledge and apologise for the delay in completing the window repair, which it said should have been completed within 20 working days, in line with its repairs policy. It also appropriately acknowledged and apologised for its communication failure and said that it should have kept the resident updated. It also appropriately outlined what steps it would take in future when a repair involved obsolete parts, which showed a willingness to learn from its failings. It also explained what would happen next and confirmed that Contractor B would be visiting the property to carry out the repairs. However, it failed to effectively manage the resident expectations by not explaining that Contractor B had already advised it that the repairs might not work and that replacement of the windows may still be necessary.
20. When the resident contacted this Service in April 2022 she advised that Contractor B’s attempt to repair the windows in February 2022 had been unsuccessful and that it had told her that the windows would need to be replaced. The resident has provided emails between herself and the landlord which confirm that the replacement of the windows was initially scheduled for 16 September 2022 and completed on 28 September 2022.  This is 16 months after the resident reported the issues with the windows in May 2021, 16 months after Contractor A recommended that the windows be replaced and 7 months after Contractor B confirmed to the resident that the windows needed to be replaced. This Service considers that timeframe to be unreasonable by any standards.
21. For the reasons stated above, this Service does not consider the landlord’s compensation award of £350 to be appropriate or proportionate. In line with our remedies guidance (published on our website), which suggests awards of over £1000 for cases of maladministration where the resident has been impacted by serious failings by the landlord over a significant period time, this Service will be ordering the landlord to award additional compensation of £850 for this aspect of the complaint. The £850 will be in addition to the £350 the landlord has already awarded, giving a total award of £1200 in recognition of the landlord’s severe maladministration in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports of issues with her windows. It is also in addition to the £200 compensation that this Service has awarded for the landlord’s complaint handling failings (which is further explained in the section of this report that addresses its complaint handling).

Complaint handling.

22. The landlord’s complaint and compliments policy that was in effect at the time when the complaint was raised, says that it has a two stage complaints process and that at stage one of the complaints process the complaint will be handled by the resident’s local officer, unless the complaint is about the local officer, in which case the stage one investigation will be handled by their manager. Although the main subject of the complaint was the delay in repairing the windows and the landlord’s failure to acknowledge the safety issues, the resident’s point of contact throughout these issues was her local officer. The resident’s complaint was emailed to her local officer, detailed the communication she had with the local officer, and how she had tried to convey to them how urgent the repairs were and that no action had been taken in response to her communication with them. Therefore, the complaint did concern the actions of the local officer, and as such it would have been reasonable and in line with the landlord’s complaints policy for their line manager to have handled the complaint. However, the local officer handled the complaint herself. This resulted in the local officer investigating a complaint that was in part, about herself which was inappropriate. as it was not in line with the landlord’s complaints policy. 
23. The landlord’s complaint responses should appropriately address all the key points the resident raised in their complaint. The landlord’s stage one complaint response on 30 November 2021 took appropriate steps to address and apologise for the delay in carrying out repairs to the window (which it explained was down to the difficulty in sourcing parts), and appropriately acknowledged that the resident should have been kept updated, and agreed that compensation would be paid for the inconvenience once the window was repaired. However, it failed to address the safety concerns that the resident had raised. It also failed to outline what action it would be taking to ensure the window was safe. It is also noted that although the resident provided a timeline of events in her complaint, which stated that Contractor B inspected the window on 30 July 2021 (which the landlord has confirmed to this service is the correct date) the landlord incorrectly referred to the inspection as taking place in September 2021 in both of its complaint responses. This gave the false impression that the window had been inspected more recently than they had.
24. The complaint policy in effect at the time states that at stage two of the landlord’s complaint process “The review will be carried out by a manager who wasn’t involved in the original decision…Your complaint will also be reviewed by at least one independent manager from another part of [the landlord] who was not involved in the original decision.” The resident has raised concerns with this Service that the stage two response was issued by the local officer’s manager, who she did not consider to be independent. This Service can confirm that although the manager reviewed the complaint and signed the stage two complaint response (which was reasonable and in line with its complaints policy, as they had not been involved in the original decision), the complaint was also reviewed by an independent manager, in line with the landlord’s complaints policy. The landlord has provided the Ombudsman with the independent manager’s review which included the recommendation that to avoid a further complaint if the repairs were not possible, the resident should be informed that Contractor B had caveated its quote that a repair might not work. Even without the benefit of hindsight, this was a reasonable approach to take as it would help manage the resident’s expectations. However, the landlord failed to include this in its stage two complaint response and there is no evidence that the landlord ever made the resident aware before the repair was attempted, that Contractor B had said the repair may not work.
25. The landlord issued its stage two complaint response on 14 January 2022, which was 30 working days after the escalation request, which was outside the 20 working days that its complaints policy aims to respond within at stage two. However, as the complaints policy states this timeframe can be extended in exceptional circumstances and the landlord was keeping the resident updated that it was awaiting confirmation from Contractor B of when the parts would arrive and when it could carry out the repairs, this Service considers the 30 working day timeframe to be reasonable under the circumstances. In its response the landlord appropriately acknowledged the delay and its communication failings and took appropriate steps to arrange for Contractor B to carry out the repairs. It also acted appropriately by awarding compensation for its failings, which included its failure to make the window safe within a reasonable time. However, as explained above, the Ombudsman does not consider the amount of compensation awarded by the landlord to be reasonable and will order a higher amount of compensation to be paid.
26. As the landlord failed to follow its complaints policy by a member of staff investigating a complaint that was in part about them, failed to address the safety concerns the resident had raised in her complaint in its stage one complaint response, gave inaccurate information about the date of Contractor B’s inspection in both complaint responses. The landlord did not manage the resident’s expectations by informing her that Contractor B had said the repairs may not work and failed to award proportionate compensation for its failings. In view of this, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling. This Service will be ordering the landlord to award compensation of £200 to the resident in respect of its complaint handling failings, which is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance which suggests amounts of £100-£600 for cases of maladministration where the landlord’s failings have adversely affected the resident but caused no permanent impact. The £200 is for the complaint handling failures alone, and is in addition to the £350 the landlord has already awarded in its stage two complaint response for its failings in respect of how it handled the resident’s reports of issue with her windows. It is also in addition to the further £850 that this Service has awarded for that aspect of the complaint. 

Determination

27. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports of issues with her bedroom windows.
28. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

29. Within four weeks of the date of this letter the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Pay the resident further compensation of £850 in recognition of its severe maladministration in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports of issues with her bedroom windows.
    2. This amount is to be paid in addition to the £350 the landlord has already awarded in respect of this aspect of the complaint.
    3. Pay the resident £200 compensation in recognition of its maladministration in respect of its complaint handling.
30. The compensation payments should be paid directly to the resident and not to her rent account.
31. Within eight weeks of today’s date, the landlord should carry out a review of this complaint to identify any lessons to be learnt from its handling of the repair request and subsequent complaint. The review should focus on the steps and timescales required if there is a potential health and safety risk involving windows. The landlord should share the findings from this case review with the resident and the Ombudsman.