The new improved webform is online now! Residents and representatives can access the form online today.

Notting Hill Genesis (NHG) (202208291)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202208291

Notting Hill Genesis (NHG)

23 May 2024

 

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 handling of the resident’s request to carry out repairs to her adapted bathroom.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident holds an assured tenancy and lives in a 1-bedroom flat with an adapted bathroom.
  2. On 18 May 2022 the resident reported an issue with her shower. After the landlord’s contractor visited the property on 8 June 2022, it was confirmed that the bathroom flooring would also need to be repaired.
  3. On 22 July 2022 the resident raised a complaint with the landlord about a delay in carrying out the repairs. The resident stated that she had to keep chasing for the repairs to be resolved and that the flooring had yet to be fixed.
  4. The landlord provided its stage 1 response to the complaint on 3 August 2022. It apologised for the time taken to carry out a repair to the shower and said that it was waiting on the contractor to confirm when it would replace the flooring.
  5. Between 16 August and 6 September 2022 the landlord contacted a second contractor about replacing the flooring. On 6 September 2022, after speaking with the resident, the second contractor was unable to carry out the repair.
  6. On 22 September 2022 the resident escalated her complaint as no progress had been made with the outstanding repairs.
  7. Between 29 September 2022 and 19 January 2023, the landlord liaised with the local council about the outstanding repairs.
  8. Between 23 January and 3 March 2023 the contractor made attempts to complete a repair to the shower. Following this, on 28 March 2023 the resident contacted the landlord to explain that no contact had been made about replacement flooring.
  9. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 5 April 2023. The landlord’s response confirmed that:
    1. It had made enquiries to its adaptations department to refer the bathroom issues to specialist contractors in June and August 2022. This communication was not successful and was not followed up.
    2. It had raised a repair to the shower on 6 February 2023 and a replacement shower head was fitted on 3 March 2023.
    3. After reviewing the complaint and speaking with the resident it had confirmed that despite the earlier repair, the shower hose was leaking. It had arranged an appointment for a contractor to investigate. It had also asked the contractor to investigate and repair the bathroom flooring.
    4. It offered compensation of £700 broken down as:
      1. £50 for a failure to complete the repair.
      2. £150 for a failure to consider the impact on the resident based on her disabilities.
      3. £350 for lack of clear communication and distress and inconvenience.
      4. £50 for a failure to escalate the complaint.
      5. £100 for a delay in the stage 2 response.
  10. On 19 April 2023 the contractor completed a repair to the shower hose, but the resident had to contact the landlord to chase a repair to her bathroom flooring.
  11. A contractor attended the resident’s property on 15 May 2023 and booked in a follow-on job to level the bathroom flooring, remove the wash basin and toilet, replace the flooring, and refit the toilet and wash basin.
  12. On 10 June 2023 a contractor attended to complete the follow-on work. Before the repair was complete the contractor left the property due to a disagreement between the resident and the contractor.
  13. On 12 June 2023 the resident contacted the landlord and explained that she believed the bathroom was not fit for purpose. Among other things she stated that the bathroom was too small and that an Occupational Therapist (OT) should assess if the room was suitable.
  14. Following this communication the landlord arranged an OT referral. This assessment was booked for 26 July 2023. On 28 August 2023 the OT sent their report to the landlord. The OT assessment recommended a complete overhaul of the bathroom which included the removal of the entire wet room facility, installing nonslip vinyl flooring and removing a partition wall.
  15. Following a surveyor’s report dated 24 January 2024, the landlord agreed to decant the resident between 19 February and 4 March 2024 while works were being carried out. The repair work was completed, and a post inspection of the repair took place on 27 February 2024.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. In the interest of fairness, the scope of this investigation is limited to the issues raised during the resident’s formal complaint. This is because the landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction with its actions prior to the involvement of this Service.
  2. The request made by the resident on 12 June 2023 significantly changed the direction of the repair as it required the involvement of the OT and subsequent major adaptations. In the Ombudsman’s view the landlord has not had an opportunity to investigate and respond to any dissatisfaction the resident had resulting from these actions.
  3. The resident has the option of making a new complaint about the landlord’s actions after 12 June 2022.

The landlord’s handling of a request to carry out repairs to the resident’s adapted bathroom

  1. The landlord’s repairs policy sets out that it will complete routine repairs within 20 working days from the date of a report and that it will aim to complete repairs on the first visit to the satisfaction of the resident.
  2. The initial actions of the landlord when dealing with the resident’s repair were reasonable and proactive. After the repair was reported on 18 May 2022 the landlord provided photos of the bathroom to the first contractor. A site visit was then carried out on 8 June 2022 where the contracted confirmed that the flooring in the bathroom needed to be replaced.
  3. After the site visit there is limited evidence to show that the landlord effectively managed the first contractor. The landlord has evidenced only 1 attempt to chase the first contractor on 28 June 2022 before deciding to cancel the repair works on 17 August 2022 as there had been no progress. The landlord’s own policy states that routine repairs should be completed within 20 working days of the report, yet the landlord did not chase the first contractor about the repair until 27 working days had passed. If the repair was not considered routine, then the landlord should have provided the resident with clear timescales of when she could expect the repair to be completed.
  4. The landlord evidently had the option to contact different contractors to arrange to complete the repair as it did so on 17 August 2022. This was 63 working days after the resident had reported the repair, and had the landlord more effectively managed the first contractor then this unreasonable delay could have been somewhat mitigated.
  5. The landlord chased the second contractor for an update on 6 September 2022. However, the second contractor explained that they were unable to carry out the repair as they were finding it difficult to arrange a day or time to complete the site visit with the resident. While this may have been frustrating for the resident, the landlord’s actions after contacting the second contractor were reasonable. It is important that a landlord works with a resident to arrange a suitable time for repairs to be carried out and the evidence shows that in this instance, there were some challenges with access and engagement.
  6. Due to the challenges with access and the resident’s known vulnerabilities, the landlord contacted the local council to support its efforts to effectively deal with the repairs. The landlord chased the council on 9 November and 11 November 2022 before the council contacted the landlord on 9 January 2023 to confirm allocation of the case. This delay was outside of the landlord’s control as the local council were responsible for arranging a practitioner to deal with the case.
  7. However, the landlord has provided no evidence to show that the resident was kept informed about the actions it was taking between 27 September 2022 and 9 January 2023. It is important for a landlord to manage a resident’s expectations and to be clear on the steps it is taking to resolve any outstanding issues. The lack of communication to explain the ongoing delays to the repair and the action it was taking to assist the resident was inappropriate.
  8. Following the referral to the council, 2 repairs were completed to replace the showerhead and repair the shower hose on 3 February and 1 March 2023. However, no repair was arranged to replace the resident’s flooring, which caused further inconvenience to her as she had to chase the landlord about the repair on 28 March 2023.
  9. The landlord provided a stage 2 complaint response dated 5 April 2023 which addressed the delays and outstanding repairs. As part of this response the landlord arranged for a contractor to visit the resident’s property on 19 April 2023 to deal with the replacement flooring. This appointment was delayed due to a system error and a new appointment was arranged for 9 May 2023. The landlord’s actions here were reasonable as it kept the resident informed about this delay which was outside of its control and was proactive in arranging another appointment.
  10. The landlord’s communication and actions continued to be proactive and informative between 9 May and 10 June 2023. The contractor attended the resident’s property on 9 May 2023, but was unable to gain access. The landlord quickly arranged a new appointment for 15 May 2023 where the contractor advised that repairs were required to level up and replace the bathroom flooring and to replace the shower trap. The landlord arranged an appointment to complete these follow-on works for 10 June 2023.
  11. The contractor attended on 10 June 2023 but there was a dispute between the resident and the contractor which led to the contractor leaving the bathroom without any new flooring. Following this the resident told the landlord on 12 June 2022 that she considered her bathroom was too small and not fit for purpose. In response the landlord arranged for an OT referral and fully explained to the resident what steps would be taken. The landlord’s actions were reasonable and dealt efficiently with the resident’s request.
  12. The resident is a vulnerable person who had expressed her distress at the delays to the repairs. While there were some mitigating factors that were out of the landlord’s control, there were also several delays that were avoidable. The delay caused the resident some frustration, distress and inconvenience that was only exacerbated by the landlord’s poor communication.
  13. The Ombudsman has considered the compensation the landlord offered at stage 2 of its complaint process when considering what is fair and reasonable in all the circumstances. The landlord offered a total of £550 for the delays to the repair, the impact to the resident and the lack of clear communication.
  14. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, which is available on our website, provides for awards of compensation between £100 and £600 where there has been an adverse impact on the resident, but the impact was not permanent. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the total amount of compensation proportionately reflects the impact to the resident and is broadly in line with our guidance. Therefore, this offer amounts to a reasonable offer of redress.

The landlord’s complaint handling

  1. The resident raised her complaint on 22 July 2022 and the landlord took 8 working days to respond to the complaint at stage 1. This was satisfactory as the response was sent within the timeframe set out in its complaints policy and addressed all the issues raised.
  2. The resident escalated her complaint on 22 September 2022 and the landlord took 134 working days to respond at stage 2. This was significantly outside of the timeframe set out in its complaint policy of 20 working days.
  3. The delay in receiving the landlord’s stage 2 response was frustrating for the resident and would have caused inconvenience to her. However, the landlord did acknowledge and apologise in its stage 2 response for its delay in responding to the resident and offered a total of £150 to recognise its complaint handling errors. The compensation is broadly in line with our guidance and fairly reflects the impact caused to the resident. In the Ombudsman’s view this offer amounts to reasonable redress.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress by the landlord in its handling of:
    1. A request to carry out repairs to the resident’s adapted bathroom.
    2. The resident’s complaint.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord pays the resident the £700 it offered in its stage 2 response if it has not already done so.