Notting Hill Genesis (NHG) (202122004)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202122004

Notting Hill Genesis

31 July 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

The complaint is about:

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of estate management issues.
The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident has a shared ownership lease with the landlord, the lease started on 19 February 2010. The property is a flat within a block of 8 flats, which are within a gated community with 2 other blocks. There is a fob intercom system to allow access, which is only accessible to residents. The landlord has confirmed that contractors are only able to get into the site with resident’s assistance.
Under the terms of the lease, the landlord is obliged to maintain, repair, redecorate and renew the main structure of the building and common parts, for which the leaseholder is obliged to pay a service charge.
Section 5(4) of the lease notes “so far as practicable the Landlord will keep the Common Parts of the building adequately cleaned and lighted”.
The landlord has advised the waste collection is carried out by the local authority for both general waste and recycling. The internal cleaning is completed twice a week by a contractor. The landlord completes monthly inspections which includes checking a sign in sheet for the cleaners coming to site and quality checking the works.
At the time the complaint was brought to this service, the landlord operated a 3 stage complaints process, its first stage was dealt with as a “quick fix”. Its procedure says it aims to contact customers and resolve these complaints within 48 hours. If the landlord cannot reach the customer to discuss their complaint within 48 hours it should be dealt with as a formal complaint.
The landlord had a two stage formal complaints process. Stage one responses should be issued within 10 days. If a response is not possible within 10 days, a written response with an action plan should be provided. Stage two responses should be issued within 20 days. Any outstanding actions are to be monitored and contact kept with resident to make sure they are carried out.
The landlord’s compensation policy states discretionary payments may be awarded for inconvenience or distress following service failure. Depending on impact, awards of up to £250 may be given.
For clarity, this investigation has focussed on the residents complaints about 3 separate elements of the landlords estate management services. These being:
1. Fly tipping
2. Maintenance of communal bin stores
3. Pest control

Summary of events

The landlord raised a repair on 26 August 2021 after a visit to site that day, the notes state the officer raising the repair witnessed two rats in the bin store and details potential access points. It is also noted that the bin stores “could do with a clean”.
The resident completed an online complaint form on 10 September 2021, within this communication the resident states it was the fourth time he was raising a complaint as “it gets closed before any significant action is taken or issues resolved”. His complaint included the following:
1. The intercom not working for several months.
2. Two contractor visits, the last known visit being 25th August.
3. A housing officer visited site and made notes.
4. Email updates had been made which was good but still he struggled to understand how there was still no contact phone number.
5. No dates for anything which was a fairly basic requirement for longstanding issues.
6. More furniture had been dumped. He had flagged this as a continuous issue. The current furniture dumped included a children’s wardrobe, the resident did not believe there to be children in his block.
7. He concluded to say he would like all previously agreed actions to take place and clear timings on when repairs will happen to be given.
The resident logged a further complaint on an online portal on 21 September 2021 stating he requested action be taken. He said “no more in due course or hoping to have updates in coming days. Complaints are not to be closed as a quick fix without even checking it ok to close”. He advised it had happened several times now.
The landlord responded to the resident on 19 October 2021 and advised a collection for the rubbish had been arranged, and chased, so was due to be “moved imminently”. It also advised a cleaning log had been put up “so it could only assume a cleaner had taken it down”. It had requested the cleaning contractor put the log back up if it had been taken down to clean. The alternative option was for the landlord to provide a monthly log to residents. The landlord advised a lot was happening to make sure the issues were rectified to restore some cleanliness to site.
On the 20 December 2021, the resident requested for the complaint to be escalated to stage 2. This was due to the fact the resident had not seen any action or resolution on the points stated in the stage 1 response.
On 20 December 2021, the landlord contacted the resident following his complaint escalation request to arrange a mutually convenient time to discuss the events leading up to the complaint submission, to understand the resident’s current situation and his desired outcome. The resident responded and a call via teams was arranged for later that day.
The landlord provided its stage two response on 24 December 2021. It advised the review of his complaint had had input from an independent manager also. It summarised the residents complaint as follows:
1. Fly tipping of bulk refuse by other residents.
2. The bin storage overflowing, poor signage, and pest control issues.
3. The cleaning team attendance log had been removed and not replaced.
4. Poor communication and lack of time frames for outstanding tasks.
It continued and addressed each point as below:
1. It understood there was a reoccurring issue of bulk waste being dumped on the site. It had previously arranged for removal of the items but more had been dumped shortly after. It agreed this was a particularly frustrating situation, as it was a gated site, meaning that the issue was likely being caused by other residents. It advised the key to tackle this issue as educating residents on the rules of the site, and the possible consequences if these rules are not followed. It distributed a document to all residents on 18 November 2021 which included instructions on waste disposal and fly tipping. It was also put on communal noticeboards. It also emailed all residents on 23 December 2021 to specifically address the reoccurring disposal of bulk waste on site, it warned residents of the consequence if caught fly tipping and directed them towards the local authority collection service. New signage for the bin stores had also been ordered and scheduled for installation in February 2022.
2. It understood there was a reoccurring issue of the bins overflowing, pest control and poor-quality signage installed. As it had said, it reiterated the key to resolving this issue being educating residents on the correct way to dispose of waste. It advised a pest control project had been completed and was followed by a deep clean of the bin stores. A follow up pest control project began on the 15 December 2021 which would be followed by another deep clean of the bin stores. Following this, new bins would be ordered and the damaged doors would be replaced. New permanent signage would be installed in the bin stores reminding residents how the bin store should be used correctly. It advised that regular pest control visits would also be scheduled to try and prevent these issues from reoccurring in future.
3. It advised it had been working with its cleaning contractor to monitor its performance and will continue to monitor its performance when it conducted monthly site visits. To avoid any further issues with the cleaning log, it was looking into locked noticeboards.
4. It had reviewed the communications between the resident and an officer and could see one instance of an email not being responded to within its 5-day service level agreement. It agreed that if the officer’s communication had been clearer and offered timescales for when issues would be resolved the complaints could have been avoided. It advised the officer had been spoken to and a live excel spreadsheet had been created so residents could stay up to date with progress being made on these issues. It confirmed to the resident how to raise an issue in the future.
It concluded by advising the level of service received fell short of the standards expected, it apologised and increased its offer of compensation to £150.
The resident responded to the landlord’s final complaint response on 4 January 2022. He advised:
1. He raised the issue of fly tipping in August 2021 and had highlighted several times that removing the bulk refuse would not resolve the issue, he was disappointed by the length of time it was taking to address this issue. He highlighted that the stage 1 response stated permanent signage would be made, this was in September, and nothing happened. If signage is put up in February as the landlord said in its stage 2 response, it would be 3-4months after it first promised this.
2. He did not believe that the bin overflowing was completely through bin misuse, the bins were left out of the store after emptying, possibly due to the rubbish in the stores which the waste collection team probably would not deal with. He believed a solution needed to be put in place to avoid overflowing bins and ensure bins are always in the rooms. He also mentioned it did not look like one of the bins had a deep clean. He provided pictures to demonstrate his point.
3. He clarified at no point had there been a cleaning log since the landlord managed the site, there was a cleaning log when the previous company managed it. In its Stage 1 response the landlord advised a new log in sheet would be on site from 24 September 2021. He advised this did not happen. He also questioned what cleaning was meant to take place as the outside grounds were not seen to, he had not had a response to this query.
4. He received no response to his reply to the stage 1 letter as mentioned or a further email from 8 December 2021. He also had not received the live spreadsheet. He stated this was unacceptable service and general poor management. He highlighted that it took until November for any action to take place after his complaint.
5. He received a letter on 27 September 2021 which said any service charge surplus/deficit would be applied to his account before 1 November 2021. This had still not happened. He had emailed but had not response. He advised he would accept the £150 compensation, however if the action promised in the landlords stage 2 response were not delivered he would escalate the complaint to the Housing Ombudsman directly.

Events post the landlord’s internal complaints process.

The resident contacted the landlord on 1 March 2022 to advise:
1. The signage had not been installed as promised.
2. New bins and doors to the bins stores were not in situ as promised.
3. Noticeboards had been installed but no cleaning log was present.
4. He had still had no response to his emails about the service charge, an adjustment had been added to account recently which he now owed but he had received no communication to advise of this cost.
5. He had still not received the compensation offered despite numerous emails to arrange or chase this up.
6. He would like the solutions previously promised to be implemented immediately. He included photos of the outside areas to show the situation had gotten worse.
Following the resident approaching this service, the landlord has carried out the following actions on 9 August 2022.
1. Requested its cleaning contractor put a sign in sheet up in the bin stores.
2. Requested and approved a quote from its contractor for a deep clean, bulky waste removal and pest control.
3. Emailed the resident and raised the offer of compensation to £250.
4. Advised the resident a new officer is managing the site and regular inspections are now completed on site, it was looking at sourcing new bins from the local authority and it was committed to provide fortnightly updates until resolved.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the residents reports of estate management issues.

Fly tipping.

The resident reported the problem with fly tipping in his initial complaint made on 10 September 2021. The resident has indicated, by stating it was the fourth time he was raising the complaint, that it was a known problem and he made the landlord aware it was reoccurring on numerous occasions. The landlord indicated it had removed the bulky items in the past but the situation reoccurred, it is not clear how many times this happened until it decided to send an email to all residents on 23 December 2021, which was the day before it issued its stage 2 response. It advised in its stage two response the key to tackle the issue was educating residents on the rules of the site, and the possible consequences if these rules were not followed yet it only sent one educational leaflet and one email about the matter in a period of four months which is not proportionate to the number of notifications received and for the length of time the situation was ongoing, according to the resident.
No evidence has been seen of any substantial pro-active or preventative measures taken by the landlord about fly tipping throughout the complaint process. Local residents’ awareness about the issue could and should have been raised by the landlord following the resident’s initial complaint if it was aware this was a recurring issue.
The landlord’s overall response to the reports of fly tipping was not adequate. It failed to investigate the issue and just reacted to the residents initial reports. It took four months for any warnings of potential consequences to be emailed to residents. It has since, in an update to this service in August 2022 said regular inspections are now carried out, which is nearly a year after the residents initial complaint and provided no good reason for the delay. Given the recurrence of the issue, the landlord should have asked what staff it had available to be aware and spend more time in the area or make a dedicated effort to establish perpetrators so sufficient action could be taken.
Although the landlord committed to install signage on site when responding to the complaint, no evidence has been seen by this service of the signage the landlord has ordered for the site. But a recommendation has simply been made that this signage should include making residents aware of consequences that dumping rubbish on the site could entail.

Cleaning and maintenance of the bin store and communal areas.

In line with the terms of the resident’s lease agreement, the landlord is responsible for provision of services which includes maintaining the common parts such as the bin store used by the residents. The landlord failed to demonstrate that it complied with its obligations to maintain the cleanliness of the bin store and communal areas throughout the complaints process. It did not monitor its cleaning contract and only asked for retrospective dates of attendance in August 2022 after this service became involved in the resident’s complaint. Furthermore, the landlord failed to establish if the cleaning was not taking place as it should or if it was taking place and was not up to an acceptable standard. The landlord failed to clarify what cleaning should be taking place and when to the resident throughout his complaint.
The landlord advised in its stage 2 response it had been working with its cleaning contractor to monitor its performance and would continue to monitor its performance when it conducted monthly site visits. No evidence has been seen by this service to substantiate that this statement was followed by actual visits.
It is not disputed that some residents had been using the bin store inappropriately as explained by the resident and evidenced by the emails the landlord sent him to this effect. The landlord should have taken more prompt action towards preventing a build-up of refuse reoccurring rather than just arranging for the rubbish to be removed. This would have been a reasonable step for the landlord to take and would have enabled it to demonstrate that it was not only seeking to resolve the complaint but also to provide a long term solution to the issue.

Pest control issues.

It is understandable that with recurring issues of overflowing bin stores that an issue with pests would occur. As the landlord failed to resolve the issues above, it is not surprising the issue reoccurred. The landlord was not proactive in its actions to resolve this issue, the rats were first reported by an officer of the landlord but no evidence has been seen by this service that the landlord acted on this initial report in August 2021. Although in its stage 2 response it mentioned a pest control project taking place and a follow up project, no evidence has been seen to substantiate this statement.
The pest control issue may have warranted a contract to be in place as on a site visit in August 2021 the issue was raised by a member of the landlord’s staff. The landlord’s response to the reports about pest control issues were subsequent to the issues above and handled in the same ineffective manner. When the above 3 separate issues are viewed cumulatively this amounts to maladministration.

The landlord’s complaint handling.

The landlord made numerous statements to the resident throughout its complaints process but failed to follow through on any promised action. The purpose of a complaints procedure is to provide a framework and process for landlords to resolve complaints. However, in this case it has not investigated what might have gone wrong or sought any possible learning opportunities. Due to the lack of substantiated investigation into any cause of the issue, the resident was uncertain as to what actions the landlord planned to take and its timeframe to undertake these, in order to fully resolve his complaint.
The landlord’s initial management of the residents complaints was poor. The resident described making numerous complaints that were closed down due to being a “quick fix”. It was not until he specifically said to the landlord on 21 September 2021 “complaints are not to be closed as a quick fix”, did the landlord listen. It is not clear how many times this happened to the resident but the landlord’s quick fix guidance supports this way of managing complaints. This acts as an informal step in a complaints process which goes against the complaint handling code of this service. The Code recognises service requests may be chased up and these could be resolved “there and then” with an apology and subsequent action. However, it makes clear if further enquiries are needed or the resident requests it, the issue must be logged as a complaint. The Code also states a 2 stage process is ideal to ensure that the complaint process is not unduly long. The landlords website currently publicises its complaints process. It retains a 3 stage process in that it still operates a “quick fix” stage in some circumstances and that process now allows 10 working days, with no formal response for this stage. It defines a “quick fix” as “a low-level, single-issue complaint” which can be “resolved within 10 days with one action, does not need a complex investigation to put right and for which the resident doesn’t require a formal response”. It is unclear where a “quick fix” fails to resolve a matter when a stage one complaint would begin as the right to “escalation” is not set out for this scenario in its policy.
The landlord should have reviewed the number of times the resident’s complaint was closed as a quick fix without it being resolved as part of its complaints process, as it is unreasonable for landlords to restrict the escalation of complaints without demonstrable good reason. This is of concern to this service as it failed to recognise where its process had gone wrong and the frustration this was causing the resident to have to repeatedly log the same issue on multiple occasions.
As part of its response to the complaint at stage 2, the landlord advised signage had been ordered, new bins would be ordered and a spreadsheet had been created to help with communication of the issues. None of these three things came to fruition when promised. Therefore, the landlord did not take the action necessary to resolve the complaint. It is not clear why this is and a relevant order will be made in this respect.
The landlord acknowledged its shortcomings to the resident and offered £150 compensation in its stage 2 response. Much like the other promises it advised of the resident still had not received this 2 months later. Upon a further review of this complaint after this services involvement the landlord has revised its offer to £250 which is the maximum amount it can award for service failure as per its compensation policy. Although this revised offer is in line with its policy the landlord failed to recognise the frustration and inconvenience the resident experienced pursuing these matters through a complaints process without any long standing resolution. In the circumstances of the case this service does not see this as adequate redress and a further order has been made to reflect the time and trouble caused by the residents prolonged pursuit of resolution.
We expect that landlords learn from complaints and improve their service delivery through those learnings. In an update to this service, the landlord identified that it failed to communicate clearly and on a regular basis to the resident, failed to escalate its issues with its contractors and failed to ensure what actions were promised were put into place. These are things which should have been recognised in its complaints process.
It is good practice for a landlord to maintain accurate, contemporaneous records on reports it receives, and its actions in response. This enables it to effectively manage any issues raised by its residents as well as fulfilling its obligations as a landlord to provide and monitor landlord services. Furthermore, it cannot properly investigate and respond to complaints without accurate and comprehensive records.
The landlord failed to provide all its communications with the resident in this case, numerous emails are referred to but have not been provided. The landlord acknowledged its poor record keeping in an update to this service and recognised that there had been limited communication provided. The landlord now being aware of this is encouraging and shows it acknowledges the need to improve. However, this still constitutes a failure.
In summary the failure to recognise its failings in its own complaints process, its failure to seek a long term solution to the resident’s complaint and its poor record keeping has resulted in a finding of maladministration for the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of estate management issues.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

No evidence has been seen of any substantial pro-active or preventative measures taken by the landlord about fly tipping, the cleaning and maintenance of the bin stores or pest control. The landlord failed to communicate clearly and deliver on the actions it promised.
The landlords failure to adhere to good practise and The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaints Handling Code was highlighted by its repeated and inappropriate use of a “quick fix” process. It had inadequate oversight of the residents complaint throughout its process, its stage 1 response lacked decisive actions and any plan to monitor to resolve the substantive issues for the resident. Its stage 2 response made further promises but failed to deliver on the proposed actions within. Even though its record keeping has been acknowledged, this is still a failure. It also failed to recognise and adequately compensate for, the rising frustration of the resident in repeatedly having to report these issues and the amount of time and trouble he spent pursuing his complaint seeking resolution.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within the next four weeks, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Arrange for a senior member of staff to apologise for the failures identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident £250 for the inconvenience caused by the failings in handling the resident’s reports about the communal areas.
3. Pay the resident £450 for the time and trouble and undoubted frustration caused by the failings in the management of his complaints.
4. This amount replaces the landlord’s previous offer of £250 for compensation related to this complaint. If the landlord has already paid the resident this amount, this should be deducted from the amount ordered and the landlord should pay the resident the remaining £450.
Within four weeks of the date of this report the landlord must initiate and complete a review of this case, identifying learning opportunities and produce an improvement plan that must be shared with this Service outlining at minimum its review findings in respect of:
1. Its intentions to ensure complaints are managed in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.
2. Its intentions to ensure a long term solution to the issues raised in this report is found and acted upon.
3. Its intentions and a timescale to review its procedures for contract management and operational oversight, including contractor performance for the management and maintenance of the communal areas specific to this complaint. This should include waste management, pest control and cleaning.
The Landlord must provide evidence to this service of its compliance with the above within four weeks of this determination.
Within eight weeks of the date of this report the landlord must undertake a self-assessment of its knowledge and information practice using the Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management (May 2023) available on our website. The Landlord must provide evidence to this service of its compliance with the above within eight weeks of this determination.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord upgrades its signage to include the consequence of fly tipping or inappropriate use of the bin stores. The Landlord should provide this service its intentions of compliance with the above within four weeks of this determination.