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

Notting Hill Genesis (NHG) (202300960)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202300960

Notting Hill Genesis (NHG)

7 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:
    1. Reports about the security of her bedroom windows and door.
    2. Formal complaint.

Background

  1. The resident occupies a 1-bedroom flat as an assured tenant of the landlord, which is a housing association. The property is situated on a main road. The bedroom is at the front of the property and has 2 windows and a door which open onto an enclosed basement-level patio, inaccessible from the main road.
  2. The landlord replaced the windows and doors as part of a cyclical works program on 23 and 24 November 2022. On 27 November 2022 the resident complained that the new bedroom windows and door were unsafe as, unlike the previous ones, they had no key-operating lock mechanism on the inside. She felt this presented additional risk given her proximity to the main road. She explained that the door had a key-operated lock on the outside, but this was impractical as there was no formal entry to the patio from the main road.
  3. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 19 December 2022. It explained that the windows had been fitted with a turn-latch lock, which it considered offered the same level of security. However, it would ask the manufacturer if it could provide a lock with a key and would update her by 9 January 2023. It offered £50 in compensation for the delay in its complaint response.
  4. The resident escalated her complaint the same day. She noted the issue related to both the bedroom windows and door and asked that it attend to better understand the problem.
  5. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 4 April 2023. It explained that it had been to the property and considered the locks sufficient and its planning team had confirmed they met safety standards. As a goodwill gesture it offered for its surveyor to attend and suggest what could be done to amend the locks on the door. It would not replace the window locks but suggested that, should she remain concerned, she could purchase these herself. It apologised for failings in its complaint handling, for which it offered a further £75 compensation.
  6. The resident declined a visit by the surveyor and referred her complaint to this Service. She remains concerned about the security of the windows and doors and believes it is the landlord’s responsibility to fit key-operated locks.

Assessment and findings

Handling of reports about the security of the bedroom windows and door

  1. Under the terms of the tenancy and Section 11 of the the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (LTA), the landlord is obliged to keep the structure and exterior of the premises in good repair. This includes the outside walls, doors, window sill, window catches, sash cords and window frames.
  2. Following the resident’s initial complaint, the landlord acted appropriately by making enquiries with its contractors about the security of the window locks, but did not raise the resident’s concerns about the door lock. As such, in its stage 1 response, it offered assurance that the turn-latch system on the windows provided sufficient security but made no mention of the door. Nor did it address her concern that the lock on the door was impractical.
  3. Given that the landlord omitted to address these issues, it was understandable that the resident felt it had not fully grasped her concerns. That the lock was impractical does not appear to have any significance in terms of security. Also, given the door had a turn lock mechanism on the inside, we might infer it was considered to offer the same level of security as the windows. However, had the landlord been more thorough in its enquiries, and addressed the resident’s concerns fully, it would have offered her more reassurance.
  4. In her complaint, the resident also asked the landlord to inspect the locks and assess the security. There is no evidence the landlord did so prior to its stage 1 response, but it acted reasonably in seeking assurance that the lock met quality standards and offered the same level of security as a key-operated mechanism. In accordance with the terms of tenancy and the LTA, the landlord has a duty to attend and resolve issues resulting in the security of the property being compromised, but there was no indication this was the case.
  5. In her escalation request, the resident once again asked that the landlord attend to view the locks. The Housing Operations Manager subsequently attended on an unknown date. Given the resident remained concerned, and felt the landlord had misunderstood the situation, it was reasonable and proportionate that it then did so. This also provided further assurance that the windows and doors were secure.
  6. In its stage 2 response, the landlord confirmed it considered all door locks to be sufficient but would send a surveyor to suggest what could be done to amend the locks on the door as a ‘goodwill gesture’. The Ombudsman appreciates the situation has caused distress to the resident who has felt unsafe and exposed. However, the landlord offered reasonable assurance that the locks were secure and offered to explore an additional solution, in consideration of her distress. The resident declined this offer, for which the landlord cannot be held responsible.
  7. The landlord was clear in its stage 2 response that it would not provide alternative locks for the windows. In its stage 1 response it had offered to speak to the manufacturer and see if a key-operated mechanism could be applied. While there was no guarantee, it had promised to update her by 9 January 2023, and it delayed in doing so. There is no evidence its position on this was communicated to the resident prior to its final response in April 2023.
  8. The manufacturer said that it could provide a key-operated lock, but it would make the windows difficult to use. Within this context the landlord’s decision not to fit them was reasonable, though it might have been helpful had it explained this to the resident, to provide further justification for its position.
  9. The resident also felt that the locks did not meet insurance requirements. The Ombudsman cannot comment on insurance criteria, but considers the landlord made appropriate enquiries and implemented locks which met standard safety requirements.
  10. Overall, the landlord’s actions in relation to the resident’s concerns about the security of the windows and doors were reasonable and proportionate. It satisfied itself the new locks were sufficient and shared this information with the resident. It visited to inspect and offered a further survey to see if it could make amendments to the door lock so that she could feel more secure.
  11. However, it is recognised that the landlord did not fully address her concerns at the earliest opportunity, in its stage 1 response. It should also have communicated more promptly about its decision not to amend the window locks. For these reasons the Ombudsman finds service failure and orders the landlord to pay the resident £50 compensation for the unnecessary frustration caused by these failures.

Handling of the formal complaint

  1. The resident fist complained about the locks on 27 November 2022. The housing officer promptly contacted her and told her she would make enquiries with the planning team, before closing the case as ‘quick fix’. The resident contacted the landlord again, on 29 November 2022, stating she did not consider the matter resolved and wanted the complaint re-opened.
  2. The landlord’s ‘complaints policy’ allows it to treat an initial complaint as a ‘quick fix’ without the need for a formal response. However, to do so it must be satisfied the issue has been fully resolved, there are no outstanding actions, and the resident is happy for the case to be closed. The landlord was, therefore, hasty in concluding the complaint at this point.
  3. Following contact from the resident, the landlord appropriately logged the complaint at stage 1 on 29 November 2022 and responded on 19 December 2022. The landlord’s policy, in line with the Complaint Handling Code (the Code), requires complaints to be responded to within 10 working days at stage 1. Its response came after 15 working days which represented a short delay. The landlord acknowledged and apologised for this and offered the resident £50 compensation for the inconvenience caused.
  4. The resident escalated the complaint the same day and the landlord responded on 4 April 2023. Its policy and the Code require that complaints are responded to within 20 working days at stage 2. At 74 working days, this represented a considerable delay. The landlord offered a further £75 in compensation, bringing the total to £125.
  5. Overall, the landlord provided reasonable redress by acknowledging the delays in its complaint handling and offering compensation in line with its policy and this Service’s remedies guidance. It should, however, have explained why it delayed and what it would do to address this going forward, and is reminded to do so in future. It should also ensure it does not close ‘quick fix’ complaints prior to their full resolution.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about the security of her bedroom windows and door.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s formal complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of this report the landlord should pay the resident £50 compensation for the frustration caused in its handling of the resident’s concerns.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should engage the resident and reiterate its offer to survey the door lock. It should consider and implement measures, which it deems appropriate and proportionate, to ensure a sense of safety for the resident.
  2. If landlord has not already done so, it should pay the resident £125 compensation for failures in its complaint handling. Please note the reasonable redress finding is made on the basis of this sum being paid to the resident as it recognised service failings which required remedy.
  3. The landlord should ensure quick fix complaints are not logged as ‘resolved’ prior to full resolution of the matter, as per its policy.
  4. The landlord should explain the reasons for any service failure it has identified within its complaint responses, and how it intends to address these. This includes where there have been delays in complaint handling.