Notting Hill Genesis (NHG) (202108980)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202108980

Notting Hill Genesis

29 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Response to the resident’s reports of leaks into the property.
2. Complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident has an assured tenancy agreement with the landlord that started in 2008. The property is a one-bedroom flat on the third floor of a block. The resident is partially deaf.
Under the tenancy agreement, the landlord is obliged to keep in good repair the structure and exterior of the property and the building in which the property is situated. This includes, among other things, the drains, gutters and external pipes, the roof, window sills, outside walls and plasterwork as well as internal walls and ceilings.
The landlord’s responsive repairs policy classes an emergency repair as one where there is an immediate danger to a person’s safety or major damage to the property including flooding. It says a repair can also be considered an emergency when major damage has not yet occurred, but has the potential to do so or where a resident is vulnerable and carrying out the works will ensure they are able to remain safely in their home due to their vulnerability.
The policy says the landlord aims to attend an emergency repair within four hours and have all major services restored within 24 hours; all further work should be completed within 24 hours within reason. The landlord aims to attend routine repairs (that is, non-emergency repairs) within 20 working days from the date of the report.
The policy also says that it is responsible for insuring the properties which it owns. Any works that it is obliged to carry out as the landlord may be covered by its buildings insurance. Residents are responsible for insuring their own contents.
The landlord has a two-stage complaints policy. It aims to respond within ten working days at stage one and twenty working days at stage two.
The landlord’s compensation policy says that where a resident experiences distress or inconvenience following a service failure it can make a discretionary payment of up to £250. This includes cases of inconvenience, hardship, distress or a “making good” payment. It also says that it will pay £30 for a missed appointment.

Summary of events

The resident provided the Ombudsman with a timeline of leaks into the property. She said the leaks had come from the box guttering outside or from a neighbouring flat:

2008 to 2016 – during heavy rain and leaks from the neighbour’s bathroom.

17 May 2017 – the neighbouring flat was empty and the fire brigade had to force entry to stop a leak.

29 May and 13 July 2018 –fire brigade attended as no access given by neighbour.

1 December 2019 – fire brigade attended as no access given by the neighbour

27 December 2020 to 18 January 2021.

27 to 28 January 2021 – fire brigade attended.

The resident provided reference numbers for the call outs made by the fire brigade. She also provided photos of the property (from 2017 to 2021 which showed water ingress and mould on the walls and ceiling) as well as internal landlord correspondence from 2018 and a letter from the local authority to the landlord from that time.
In May 2017 the resident wrote to the landlord with a history of leaks into the property.
On 7 August 2018 the local authority told the landlord that there were category two hazards under the HHSRS including damp and mould and that work should be undertaken to the parapet gutter to prevent water ingress to the property.
In November 2018 the landlord noted that the property was being affected by water ingress which it believed was emanating from the box gutters but that it could not be sure. It also noted the poor condition of the windows on the top floor and the roof which it said could also be the cause of the ingress. The landlord noted that it “was working on the assumption” that all these issues would be picked up as part of the cyclical works.
In June and July 2019 the resident reported leaks into the kitchen of the property which she said was coming from the box gutters. She explained that this happened when it rained heavily.
In late 2019 roof repairs and cyclical works took place at the property.
The evidence is not clear on when the resident made a formal complaint to the landlord. However, on 8 April 2021 the landlord responded to her at stage one of its formal complaints procedure. It said it had no access to its previous repair report at the time; however it had raised a new work order for the guttering problem to be investigated to prevent further leaks. The landlord apologised for the inconvenience this had caused. The landlord explained how the resident could escalate the complaint.
On 22 April 2021 an advice charity acting as the resident’s representative (the advice charity) asked the landlord to escalate the complaint. They explained that the resident had printed off a copy of her insurance compensation statement and had given it to the landlord when it had visited the property on 17 January 2020; and she had also emailed a copy of it to the landlord on 15 October 2020.
On the same day the advice charity told the landlord that the appointment to investigate the issue had been cancelled that day without giving a reason. They gave details of what the resident had told them: that the leaking was caused by a lack of maintenance and blockages in the box gutter which sat at the level above her flat and the adjoining raised party wall; the leaks were aggravated by furniture and plants put on the roof above by the occupants of a different flat which then caused further blockages to the gutter.
The advice charity said the resident had explained that, even though maintenance work and unblocking of the gutter had taken place, leaks continued on an intermittent basis when it rained heavily. It added that the resident wanted the landlord to fix the problems as she had had several floodings over the years, which had damaged her property and belongings, and which continued to be a very stressful and upsetting experience which impacted on her general wellbeing.
On 12 May 2021 the landlord wrote to the advice charity. The main points were:
1. It recalled raising a works order for the box guttering in 2019/2020; however, it did not have access to its previous repair system. As it had new contractors, it had raised a new repair which was supposed to be attended on the afternoon of 22 April 2021 but that was cancelled as the contractor was unwell and this had been rescheduled for the afternoon of 14 May 2021. The landlord apologised for the inconvenience and offered compensation of £30 for the missed appointment.
2. It said that, during sign-up, residents would have been advised to look into content insurance in the event of an incident. The resident would have been responsible to arrange for this and the landlord would not be liable for any compensation for the loss/damage to the furniture. It said it had advised that the resident should make a claim with its insurance team but to date no claim had been filed.
3. It acknowledged there had been a leak at the property from 2017 due to roof issues but that had been remedied when the roof and cyclical works were completed in late 2019.
4. It would ensure the neighbour removed the pots from the balcony while it was on site on 20 May 2021.
5. The landlord offered compensation of £50 as it had not responded within ten working days.
On 14 May 2021 a contractor carried out repairs on the guttering. They noted that both the gutters and outlets were blocked causing them to fill with water and enter the building; these were cleared and two mesh balloons were installed in the outlets. The contractor noted that the flashing under both window sills was badly installed with gaps, the leadwork around the dormer windows was in poor condition exposing the plywood underneath, the leadwork had been re-dressed and gaps were filled with sealant as a temporary measure until the lead could be renewed and four metres of flashing sealed. They also noted that the dormer lead was sealed temporarily where possible but the condition of the lead was so poor that there were still some gaps exposing the plywood and the lead required renewal.
On 27 May 2021 the resident sent her claim to the landlord’s insurance team by email. These claims gave details of specific incidents from 2008 to 2016, May 2017, July 2018, December 2019, December 2020 and January 2021.
On 1 June 2021 the landlord told the advice charity that, once the resident’s claim had been submitted to it, the matter would be passed onto its liability insurers for action. It explained that, in order not to compromise its insurers position, it could no longer enter into any further correspondence on the claim with the resident or her representative. It said queries should be addressed to the insurers direct. It added that the insurer’s decision would be final and, if the claimant was unhappy with the insurer’s decision it would need to contact the insurer, not the landlord.
On 30 June 2021 the landlord responded to the resident at the final stage its formal complaint procedure. In relation to the complaint brought to the Ombudsman, the landlord said that, as she had an open claim with its insurers, all queries relating to that would need to go through them. It confirmed the gutter repair was carried out on 14 May 2021.
On 27 July 2021 the advice charity told the landlord that the resident had reported further water damage on 12 July 2021.
On 5 August 2021 the advice charity asked the landlord to resolve the resident’s insurance claim as quickly as possible. It explained the resident had several health conditions and was finding the complaint procedure exhausting mentally and physically. She said that she believed the landlord had failed to address the continuing cause of her home being flooded when it rained, which she said had also attracted ants and other creatures.
Following further contact from the advice charity, on 31 August 2021 the landlord told them that the repairs required to stop the leak had been carried out. The landlord did not evidence what action it took and/or if this was action taken after the repair in May 2021.
On 14 September 2022 the landlord told the Ombudsman that a further repair had been raised on 25 August 2022 with an appointment date of 26 September 2022.
Also in September 2022 the landlord told the Ombudsman that, as this was a historic case, it no longer had a lot of the information we had requested due to a merger of housing associations that took place in 2018. It explained that this meant a lot of the information was on old systems that it no longer used or had access to easily. The landlord added that there had been a number of contractors used on this case over the years, coupled with numerous changes of housing officers and it was therefore quite limited in the information it could retrieve as a lot of its exchanges were done via email.
When the resident approached Ombudsman she said, currently, when it rained heavily, the water leaked into her flat – into the bedroom, kitchen and living room. She said there were cracks in the ceiling due to the water ingress. She said when she knew it was going to rain she had to move her belongings round so they did not get damaged; she said her furniture was not where she wanted it to be. She said the wet wood also meant that she had insects in the property.
The resident said she had been told the box guttering would be inspected every three months, but that had not happened and she knew that as she had taken photos. She said she was having to run a dehumidifier to dry the rooms out, which was expensive. She said, when she was depressed, she could not always telephone the landlord to report and chase matters. By way of an outcome, the resident wanted compensation for distress and the cost of running the dehumidifier and wanted matters resolved. She stressed that she believed the issue was the box guttering. The resident added in a later email that she was very unwell at this time and having flooding in the property was “affecting me greatly”. She added that she was “pretty close to a total breakdown, I am totally exhausted and don’t know how much more I can take”.
The resident provided photos of debris and rubbish including moss, soil and nappies that she said had been removed on 26 September 2022 from the box guttering.

Assessment and findings

It would not be appropriate to investigate the handling of reports of leaks back to 2008 as too much time has passed. This report has therefore focussed on events following the roof repairs and cyclical works that took place at the end of 2019.
It was appropriate for the landlord to pass the resident’s claim for damage to her belongings to its insurer because they could assess the damage and reach a decision on whether it was a result of any negligence by the landlord. Dissatisfaction with a decision reached by the insurer would be a matter for the Financial Ombudsman Service.
The landlord was unable to provide various records requested by this Service to assist with this investigation including the reports the resident had made to it about the leaks into the property; the repairs action taken; or any investigation reports or surveys. The landlord’s failure to provide these records requested by the Ombudsman is a significant failure. The landlord should ensure that critical correspondence is retained when there is a change of housing officer; where communication is via email this should be saved on to the landlord’s record management system to ensure historical information is retained and continuity.
In the absence of this evidence, this report has relied on the scant records the landlord was able to provide along with evidence from the resident. This evidence shows that, even after the repairs to the roof and cyclical works in late 2019, leaks into the property have continued. In May 2021 the contractor undertook further, temporary repairs but noted significant additional work was required. This Service has seen no evidence that this further, necessary work was carried out.
Further, the advice charity reported further water damage in July 2021 and, the following month said the landlord had failed to address the continuing cause of the property flooding when it rained. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of leaks was not appropriate because there is no evidence that the landlord took action in response to those reports.
The landlord has a responsibility under the tenancy agreement to keep the structure and exterior of the property in good repair. While water ingress might not always fall under the category of an emergency repair (depending on the severity) the landlord still has a responsibility to investigate and resolve. While the landlord undertook some repairs, there is no evidence it investigated the water ingress that occurred when it rained or that it carried out follow-on works after repairs in May 2021. This is a significant service failure.
Orders have been made below for the landlord to engage with an expert to fully investigate the causes of leaks into the property (from the box guttering and from rainfall) and then take action to resolve them in line with their recommendations. This work should include making permanent the temporary repairs completed in May 2021, taking action to resolve any mould and damp within the property and engaging with pest control to try to eradicate the insects that the resident believes are in the property as a result of the damp conditions.
In relation to the failures identified the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes as well as our own guidance on remedies.
The landlord offered £30 for a missed appointment on 22 April 2022 which was appropriate and in line with its compensation policy. However, it is evident that the regular, unresolved leaks over a long time have caused significant inconvenience and distress to the resident. There was a significant leak in December 2020 (after repairs were carried out in late 2019) as well as reports of regular leaks when there was heavy rainfall which were not resolved. This water ingress have meant that the resident has had to move furniture so that it is not affected by the leaks; has lived with damp and mould; and has had infestations of insects which she believes are a result of the dampness in the property.
The evidence suggests that since late 2020 the resident has been living with intermittent leaking – a period of some 21 months. Financial compensation is appropriate here of £900 made up of £750 for the impact on the resident and £150 for the additional energy costs she has incurred by the regular use of a dehumidifier. This sum is within the range of amounts that the Ombudsman can order when he has found evidence of considerable service failure or maladministration. This includes cases where there have been delays in investigating and resolving repair issues.

Complaint handling

The advice charity asked to escalate the complaint on 22 April 2021; the landlord issued the final response on 30 June 2021. That is outside the timescales set out in its complaint procedures. The landlord did issue a response in the meantime on 12 May 2021; it would have been more appropriate for that to have been the stage two response. The resulting delay meant that the landlord lost the opportunity to resolve matters at the earliest opportunity.
The landlord offered the resident £50 for the delay in issuing the response in May 2021. The Ombudsman considers that that sum is proportionate redress for the impact its delays had on the resident at that time.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s reports of leaks into the property.
In accordance with paragraph 55 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman considers that the landlord has made redress to the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint with respect to its complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord was unable to provide evidence to the Ombudsman to assist with this investigation. That was a record keeping failure. The landlord undertook some repairs; however, there is no evidence it investigated the water ingress that occurred when it rained or that it carried out follow-on works after repairs in May 2021.
The landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint was not in line with its complaints procedure. It offered redress for this which the Ombudsman considers to be adequate redress for the impact on her.

Orders

The landlord shall take the following action within four weeks of the date of this report and should evidence compliance with these orders to the Ombudsman:
1. Pay the resident the sum of £980 made up of:
  1. £900 for the impact of its failure to investigate and resolve the issue of water ingress into the property (£750) and the additional energy costs (£150).
  2. £80 that the landlord previously offered the resident for the missed appointment (£30) and delay in providing a written response (£50), if it has not paid this sum previously.
2. Engage with an expert to fully investigate the causes of leaks into the property and then take action to resolve them in line with this expert’s recommendations. This work should include making permanent the temporary repairs completed in May 2021, take action to resolve the mould and damp and cracked ceilings within the property, and also engage with pest control to try to eradicate the insects that the resident believes are in the property as a result of the damp conditions.
3. Ensure that all information and communication are retained on the case file. Where this information is contained within emails, these should also be retained on the casefile to assist with the landlord’s own investigation of matters as well as by this Service.