Notting Hill Genesis (NHG) (202114679)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202114679

Notting Hill Genesis

11 January 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 resident has complained about:
   1. the length of time scaffolding was in place at her property;
   2. the landlord’s communication with her regarding cyclical maintenance work; and
   3. the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Background and summary of events

2. The resident holds a secure tenancy of the premises where she has lived since 2 May 1994. There have been a number of changes to the landlord throughout the lifetime of the tenancy. The property is a three-bedroom maisonette within a grade two listed house with a rear garden. There is a shared front garden.
3. The resident is over 70 years old; she has a blue disabled badge due to restricted mobility and at the time of the complaint was awaiting further surgery.
4. The tenancy agreement states that the landlord (2.3a) shall keep in good repair the structure and exterior of the premises and the building in which the premises are situated.  Includes the roof, (iii) outside walls, outside doors, windowsills, window catches, sash cords, glazing putties and window frames and glass, including the necessary painting and decoration.   At 2.5 it states: The Association shall decorate the exterior of the premises of the building in which the premises are situated normally at least every five years…
5. A ground level pre works inspection was completed on 4 July 2019 which highlighted the need for significant ground works and maintenance.  Scaffolding was erected on 28 September 2020.  This was further strengthened and extended on 1 October 2020.
6. The resident complained that she was unaware that this was happening and was unable to prepare or remove or replant plants in the garden.  She was unhappy that no work took place that used the scaffolding until 21 January 2021.
7. Once the roof was assessed the landlord discovered that the joists were in poor condition and would not support the new roof that was planned. The work was therefore halted but the scaffolding remained in place.
8. The chronology that accompanied the resident’s complaint set out the number of times that she had contacted the landlord and its contractors to ask what was happening and when the scaffolding would be removed.  It was still in place at the time the complaint was made.
9. The resident explained that the scaffolding made her home dark and provided photographs showing the scaffolding bars outside her window and how they prevented the sunlight entering her home.  She explained that the scaffolding made her feel locked in her home and made it difficult to use the garden. The scaffolding also obstructed the French windows that provided access into the garden.
10. The chronology stated that the last time cyclical works had happened was in 2005-2006 and pointed out that under the tenancy agreement the landlord’s obligation was to undertake these works every five years.
11. The landlord issued its response on 29 June 2021. This confirmed that the contractors had advised the scaffolding would be taken down within the next two weeks.  It explained that the property was to be referred to the Central Planned Works Team and that the roof renewal, external decorations, and repairs would be treated as one project.  The works should be completed within 2021-22 and a start date would be provided to the resident once this had been confirmed.  The landlord offered £250 compensation for the inconvenience caused by the delays in completing the roof repairs.
12. The resident escalated the complaint on 11 July 2021.  She reminded the landlord of its obligations regarding cyclical maintenance and stated that the £250 offered was not sufficient for the breach of contract with no maintenance having been undertaken for the past 15 years.   She set out the inconvenience caused to her by these failings under the following headings:
    1. Loss of amenity – locked down and locked in
    2. Lack of communication
    3. Front Garden ravaged – plants
    4. Neighbours alienated, general access and external issues
    5. Garden door and step levels down to back garden
    6. Aids and Adaptions
    7. Outside cupboard under stairs – theft
13. The resident provided further examples of poor communication that had occurred since the stage one letter was issued. These related to dates the landlord advised that works would be undertaken.  She chased an acknowledgement of her letter on 28 July 2021.
14. The landlord acknowledged the escalation request on 30 July and sent a further letter on 3 August 2021.  It noted that a number of new issues had been raised and confirmed that a separate complaint would be set up to consider these.  A final response was sent on 13 August 2021.  This solely related to the length of time the scaffolding was in place and the landlord’s communication with the resident regarding cyclical works and the scaffolding.
15. The landlord accepted that the circumstances of both the works and the scaffolding could have been handled more promptly.  It stated that, given the type of works needed and the surveyor’s involvement, the scaffolding would have needed to be in place for a number of months, but it accepted that the time the scaffolding was in place (September 2020 – July 2021) would have caused additional inconvenience to the resident.  It apologised and increased its offer of compensation to £400.
16. In relation to the complaint that the landlord was in breach of its cyclical maintenance obligations under the tenancy agreement the landlord apologised that works were not completed.  It stated that as this was a historical matter, it was unable to ascertain the reasons why this happened but confirmed that the property had now been identified for in-depth external maintenance and decorations works.
17. The landlord confirmed that the works were scheduled to be completed by March 2022. It recognised that the uncertainty about what would be done and when would cause the resident inconvenience and distress and offered a further £100 plus an additional £50 for the further communication gaps.  The final offer of compensation was £550 in total.

Assessment and findings

Scoping issue

18. As a number of new issues were raised by the resident following her complaint escalation, the landlord explained that these would be considered under a separate complaint. This related to:
    1. The scaffolding which the resident alleged caused damage to the plants in the front garden.
    2. Issues the scaffolding caused for the neighbours.
    3. Problems with the garden door and steps.
    4. The installation of aids and adaptations.
    5. Repair to the external cupboard door.
19. The outcome of this complaint is not known and as such, these matters have not been considered as part of this investigation. This is in accordance with paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme) which explains that the Ombudsman will not consider complaints which are made prior to exhausting a landlord’s internal complaints procedure.
20. The Ombudsman is aware that the resident experienced difficulties in obtaining a response to this complaint as shared with this Service on 5 November and 7 December 2021. The Ombudsman subsequently contacted the landlord (on 5 January 2022) and requested that it progress this matter and respond to the resident. It is unclear to this Service how the complaint has since progressed, however.

Scaffolding

21. The scaffolding was in place from September 2020 to July 2021. The landlord has accepted that it remained in place for too long. There is no doubt that this was inconvenient and unpleasant for the resident. Her home was darker, she had more difficulty navigating access to and from the garden, and the scaffolding took up much of the room in the garden allegedly damaged a number of trees and plants.
22. The landlord has apologised for the length of time that the scaffolding was in place. It is difficult to know precisely how long the scaffolding was required, but the landlord’s final response stated that it would have needed to be in place for a number of months. The landlord offered compensation of £400 for the inconvenience caused to the resident by the delays in removing the scaffolding.
23. The landlord therefore agreed that there were unnecessary delays and recognised that this caused distress and inconvenience to the resident. As a result, it made an offer of compensation in line with the exceptional level set out in its compensation policy.
24. The landlord has also accepted that it’s communication with the resident was poor in that it failed to inform her that the scaffolding was to be installed. Following the complaint, it undertook checks, and its contractors took steps to contact the resident at various times whilst the scaffolding was in place.  The landlord also accepted that there were periods of time when the resident had to chase for a response from its housing officer.   It offered compensation of £100 for the distress caused to the resident by the lack of up-to-date information.
25. The landlord therefore recognised that it’s communication with the resident was not sufficient and took appropriate steps to remedy this through its apology and offer of redress.
26. There is, however, no evidence to show that the landlord considered the resident’s vulnerability and mobility issues when installing the scaffolding or whilst it was in place. The Ombudsman has subsequently made a recommendation below.

Cyclical maintenance

27. The resident has stated that she repeatedly contacted the landlord enquiring about cyclical maintenance over a period of years. This has not been disputed by the landlord. It has offered no explanation as to why it failed to honour its contractual obligations in relation to the maintenance but has confirmed that given the historic nature of this element of the complaint it was not possible to now ascertain the reasons. It has however confirmed that the works at the property have now been identified and are progressing.   Given the historic nature of the issue and that no complaint was raised at the time the cyclical maintenance became overdue, this was a fair response.

Complaint handling

28. The landlord sought to treat the resident fairly by making sure each element of the complaint was considered at both stages of its complaint’s procedure.  This was in accordance with its complaints policy. However, in this case it’s separation of aspects of the complaint have made it difficult for a full assessment of the complaint under consideration to have been completed. For example, when considering the distress and inconvenience caused by the scaffolding, it has not considered how the delays in removing the scaffolding impacted the neighbour’s behaviour, access from the French Windows, or the damage the scaffolding allegedly caused to the garden.
29. The landlord should ensure that any severing of complaints does not prevent a fair assessment of all elements of a complaint.
30. In addition, it is not known whether the second complaint has actually completed the complaints process, even though the resident had continued to express her dissatisfaction, particularly in relation to aids and adaptations at her home.
31. The landlord’s review decision was issued slightly outside of the target timescale, however there is no evidence that this caused undue detriment to the resident.  The delay was acknowledged by the landlord (along with the lack of response from its housing officer) and an additional £50 compensation was offered for this failing.   The landlord has therefore provided reasonable redress to the resident for this delay.

Determination (decision)

32. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was reasonable redress offered by the landlord for its service failure in respect of the complaints regarding:
    1. the length of time scaffolding was in place at her property, and its communication regarding this
    2. delays in complaint handling.
33. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in its respect of the complaint regarding:
    1. the landlord’s communication with the resident regarding cyclical maintenance work.

Reasons

34. The landlord recognised that there were delays in its removal of the scaffolding and that this caused distress and inconvenience to the resident.  It’s offer of compensation was in accordance with its compensation policy and recognised that the situation warranted an ‘exceptional’ award.

Orders and recommendations

Recommendations

35. That the landlord, if it hasn’t already, pays the resident the amount of £550 as awarded in its stage two response.
36. That the landlord, if it hasn’t already, progresses the separate complaint to the next stage in its complaints procedure and sends the resident a letter detailing its final response within the next four weeks
37. That the landlord ensures that records are kept detailing how resident vulnerabilities have been considered when installing scaffolding and undertaking cyclical works.