Notting Hill Genesis (NHG) (202221363)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202221363

Notting Hill Genesis

26 June 2023

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 repairs to the communal front entrance door lock.
   2. Complaint handling.

Background

2. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. The property is a flat in a block with a communal front entrance door.
3. On 30 May 2022 the resident reported to the landlord that he was having difficulty using a new lock on the communal front door, that had been replaced following a fire safety inspection. The lock was inspected several times between that date and July 2022, following similar reports from the resident. Repairs were carried out when the contractor assessed that they were required, though on at least one occasion the lock was found to be working when inspected. During this time the landlord also gave the resident a good will gesture of £20 for a lock he had fitted himself that was removed and not returned when it was replaced by the contractor. As the resident was continuing to experience problems operating the lock, on 16 August 2022 he raised a complaint. He said there were vulnerable tenants in the block who struggled to get in and out because the lock that had been fitted was poor quality and did not work all of the time.
4. In its stage one complaint response on 28 August 2022 the landlord acknowledged that the resident was finding the lock difficult to use despite repairs it had carried out in an attempt to address this. It added that although a previous inspection on 11 July 2022 had found no issues, the resident had highlighted an issue with the barrel on a subsequent visit on 18 August 2022 and it would be referring the repair to another contractor to investigate this. It apologised for the frustration caused by the lock.
5. On 6 September 2022 the resident requested that his complaint be escalated and on 13 September he explained that the lock still needed repairs following an operative’s visit on 2 September 2022 and that when he had reported this to the landlord’s emergency line on 3 September 2022, he was told the repair was not an emergency and that someone would contact him on Monday 5 September 2022. However, nobody contacted him and despite him chasing it with the landlord again on 5 and 6 September, nobody called back until 7 September 2022, at which point a temporary repair was carried out. Another appointment was made for the morning of 9 September 2022, but nobody attended. It was only when the resident contacted the landlord to report the non-attendance that the resident was informed that the contractor’s vehicle had broken down. The appointment was rearranged for 14 September 2022. He said he wanted the lack of security of the property addressed and that he believed the door itself may need to be replaced. He also requested financial compensation for the impact on he and his wife’s wellbeing.
6. During emails prior to the stage two response being issued the resident also said that he had found one of the contractors rude. The landlord apologised for the exchange with the contractor and apologised that it had not returned the resident’s calls in early September 2022. It also apologised for the missed appointment on 9 September 2022, which it said it would address via its missed appointments process.
7. In its stage two complaint response on 3 November 2022 the landlord said that it had initially referred the repairs to its day-to-day repairs contractor. However, it had since referred it to a more specialist contractor. It said that although the door lock was now fully operational, another repair would be raised to fill in a gap in the door and following feedback from the specialist contractor, it would be replacing the door itself, as part of its cyclical repairs. It apologised for the impact the repairs had had on the resident but said there had been no service failure. It said that in future it would be best practice to book the repairs with the specialist contractor in the first instance. It apologised for its delay in issuing its stage two complaint response and awarded £100 for that delay.
8. The resident contacted this Service in December 2022 as he was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and felt that the landlord’s actions had affected the mental health of himself and his wife, for which he wanted compensation. He said he had still not been given a date for the door to be replaced. The landlord has confirmed to this Service that if for any reason the door is not replaced as part of cyclical works in the 23/34 financial year, it will request for the external contractor to replace the door with its Assets team.

Assessment and findings

9. The resident has made reference to the landlord’s actions affecting his and his wife’s mental health. It is outside the Ombudsman’s role to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This is because we cannot establish whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s actions and/or inaction and the resident’s or the resident’s wife’s health. This would be more appropriately dealt with as a personal injury claim through the courts or the landlord’s liability insurer. Although we would not investigate the effect on the resident’s health, consideration has been given to any distress and inconvenience the resident experienced as a result of any errors by the landlord.

Repairs to the communal front entrance door lock.

10. As a fire risk assessment had recommended that the front door lock be replaced, the landlord acted appropriately by arranging a replacement. When the resident reported that he was having difficulty operating the new lock, the landlord took appropriate steps to visit and inspect the lock. Although not every inspection found an issue, it took appropriate steps to carry out repairs when an issue was identified. As the resident continued to experience problems the landlord’s decision to refer the lock to a specialist contractor was appropriate.
11. When the specialist contractor recommended that the door was replaced, as the lock was still functioning and the landlord is a social landlord with a limited budget, it was reasonable that it made the decision to replace the front door as planned works, as part of its cyclical works programme. This is further confirmed by its repairs policy which states that “In cases where a repair can be more cost effectively if carried out as part of a programme of planned or cyclical works, we will consider this option and inform residents accordingly.”.  The landlord’s major works criteria guidance document also confirms that “Single windows and doors are eligible for replacement if there is evidence they are beyond economical repair and this has been verified by a technical member of team”.
12. It is important to note that the Ombudsman’s opinion that it is reasonable for the landlord to replace the door via its cyclical works is based on the premise that the lock is still functioning. If at any point the lock ceases to function and is deemed to be beyond repair, it would be appropriate for the landlord to review its position regarding the timeframe for replacing the door.
13. Although the landlord appropriately acknowledged that it may have been better had it referred the repair to a specialist contractor at an earlier stage this would not have changed the eventual outcome in terms of when the door would be replaced, as it would still have been replaced via the landlord’s cyclical works, rather than immediately. When the resident said that he found one of the contractors rude, the landlord took appropriate steps to speak to the contractor and to apologise to the resident.
14. Although on the whole the landlord’s actions were reasonable there was service failure during September 2022 when the landlord failed to contact the resident following his reports about the lock and the security of the property, on 3 September 2022, resulting in the resident having to contact it again on 5 and 6 September, before it eventually contacted him on 7 September 2022. It would also have been appropriate for the landlord or its contractor to have contacted him to advise that the morning appointment on 9 September would not be taking place due to a vehicle breakdown. However, it failed to do so. It did however appropriately apologise for this and said that it would be addressed via its missed appointments procedure. The landlord’s compensation and goodwill gestures policy confirms that it will pay £30 for missed appointments. It is not clear whether £30 has been paid to the resident so this Service will be ordering the landlord to make that payment of £30 if it has not already done so.
15. Although the landlord also took appropriate steps to apologise for its failure to return the resident’s calls in September 2022, in view of the service failure identified and the impact on the resident, this Service believes that it would be appropriate to pay the resident compensation of £100 for that failing too. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance (published on our website) for cases where there was service failure that the landlord failed to appropriately acknowledge, where the impact on the resident may include distress and inconvenience, time and trouble, disappointment, loss of confidence, and delays in getting matters resolved.  This Service will also be ordering that the landlord contact the resident to provide an estimated date for the replacement of the door, if it has not already done so.

Complaint handling.

16. The landlord has a two-stage complaint process. Its complaints policy confirms that it has a response timeframe of 10 working days at stage one, and a 20 working day response timeframe at stage two. The landlord’s stage one complaint response was issued within the correct timeframe. However, following the resident’s escalation request on 6 September 2022, its stage two complaint response was not issued until 3 November 2022. This was outside its 20 working day response timeframe and therefore service failure.
17. However, the landlord appropriately acknowledged and apologised for this failing within its stage two response. It also took appropriate steps to award compensation of £100. This is in line with this Service’s remedies guidance for service failure that may not have significantly affected the overall outcome for the resident but where the impact might include distress and inconvenience, time and trouble, disappointment, loss of confidence, and delays in getting matters resolved. Therefore, this Service considers the landlord’s apology and £100 compensation to be reasonable redress for this aspect of the complaint.

Determination

18. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of repairs to the communal front entrance door lock.
19. In accordance with paragraph 53 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress in respect of its complaint handling prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint handling aspect of the complaint satisfactorily.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

20. Within four weeks of the date of this letter the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £100 compensation for its service failure in respect of its handling of repairs to the communal front entrance door lock.
21. The landlord should also pay the resident £30 for the missed appointment in September 2022 if it has not already done so.
22. The landlord should contact the resident to confirm the estimated date that the door will be replaced, if it has not already done so.
23. The landlord should confirm compliance with the above orders within 4 weeks of this report.

Recommendations

24. It is recommended that the landlord pay the resident the £100 offered in its stage 2 response, for its complaint handling failures if it has not done so already.