Notting Hill Genesis (NHG) (202345782)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202345782

Notting Hill Genesis (NHG)

22 August 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 damage caused to the resident’s property following a sewage leak due to a blocked communal stack pipe.

Background

  1. The resident holds a shared ownership lease with the landlord. The resident owns a 35% share of the property.
  2. The resident’s property was flooded with sewage water several times between March 2023 and August 2023. The resident also paid for a plumber to attend on several occasions during this period to investigate the cause of the leak.
  3. On 21 August 2023, the resident sent the landlord a completed insurance claim form for the building insurance for the block, for damage caused to her property following the sewage leak. The resident sent the form to the landlord to pass onto the building insurer, which was an external insurance company.
  4. On 7 November 2023, the resident submitted a complaint to the landlord. She explained her flat had been flooded 3 times in the last 7 months, due to a blocked stack pipe, which resulted in severe damage to her floor and damage to the communal door. She stated that the damage had still not been resolved and after several months of chasing, the insurance department told her that it would not replace the damaged floors. The resident explained that there was wastewater under the flooring in her flat, which could lead to serious health problems.
  5. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 20 November 2023. It explained that its insurance team had previously provided the resident with an insurance claim form, which was completed and returned by the resident. The landlord stated the insurance team advised the resident team that the insurer would not cover the cost of the carpets. In addition, the landlord explained that it had provided support to the resident throughout the repairs process and maintained open communication. It stated that the water damage cover in the building insurance policy related to damage to the structure of the fabric of the building rather than damage to personal items or contents within the building. It explained that the damage to personal items or contents within the building was the responsibility of the resident. The landlord also asked the resident to provide copies of the invoices for the plumbing costs she incurred so it could reimburse these costs.
  6. On 6 December 2023, the resident requested her complaint to be escalated to the next stage of the landlord’s complaints process. She explained she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and stated that the landlord’s communication was poor. She also stated she had spent a lot of time over the last 9 months chasing the landlord for a response and an update. In addition, the resident explained she acknowledged that the building insurer would not cover the costs of the carpet replacement but stated that the landlord should cover this cost as its blocked communal stack pipe caused the damage.
  7. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 19 January 2024. It explained that it had looked at all the evidence provided, and it acknowledged that it did not communicate effectively and transparently. It stated that staff changes had impacted the level of communication and confirmed that her insurance claim had not been dealt with within a reasonable timescale. In addition, the landlord explained it had concluded that the original leak was communal, and it failed to diagnose the cause of the leak on more than one occasion. It also acknowledged that its cleaning contractor previously attended the resident’s property to carry out a deep clean but did not complete it satisfactorily. The landlord confirmed that water jetting of the communal stack pipes would take place annually to prevent any further blockages going forward. It asked the resident to send her contractor’s quotes for replacing the carpets in both of her bedrooms and confirmed it would look to reimburse the costs. The landlord offered the resident £400 compensation for distress and inconvenience caused by its poor communication and delay in responding to her initial insurance claim.
  8. On 10 June 2024, the landlord sent an additional response to the resident about the invoice reimbursement for the costs incurred by the resident and its delay in paying the offer made in its stage 2 complaint response. It apologised to the resident that she had not yet received the compensation it offered it in its stage 2 complaint response. The landlord confirmed it had raised a payment request for £4428.43, which included:
    1. £600 compensation it offered in its stage 2 complaint response. (This compensation amount figure had increased, as the stage 2 complaint response previously referenced £400 compensation for distress and inconvenience.
    2. £474.00 reimbursement for the resident’s cleaning invoice.
    3. £2587.20 reimbursement for the resident’s flooring contractor invoice.
    4. £767.23 reimbursement for plumbing invoices.

In addition, the landlord also confirmed that it would pay the resident an additional £100 compensation to recognise its delay in processing the compensation payment to the resident, which resulted in a total payment of £4528.43.

  1. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and submitted her complaint to the Ombudsman. She stated that her desired outcome was for the landlord to pay her additional compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused.

Assessment and findings

Scope of Investigation

The resident submitted a claim on the building insurance to cover the costs associated with the damage to the property from the sewage leak. The landlord and resident have confirmed that the building insurer declined to cover the cost of replacing the damaged carpets at the resident’s property. Normally, when there is structural damage to a property, a leaseholder may be able to raise a claim under the building insurance. The insurer is usually a separate organisation, and the Ombudsman cannot look at the actions of insurers, only at the actions of the landlord. Therefore, we cannot comment on the outcome of any claim made to the building insurer. The resident could raise a separate complaint to the buildings insurer if she is dissatisfied with its handling of the claim.

  1. The resident has mentioned as part of the complaint that the leak into her property which included wastewater could have impacted her health. The service does not doubt the resident’s comments about her health. However, it is outside the Ombudsman’s role to determine whether there is a direct link between the landlord’s actions or inaction and any specific impact on the resident’s health. It would be more appropriately suited for a court or liability insurer to investigate it as a personal injury claim. Courts can award damages in a different way to the Ombudsman and review medical evidence. This service can consider the general risk and any distress and inconvenience caused by any errors by the landlord and the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about her health.

Lease agreement terms, policies, and procedures.

  1. The lease agreement explains that the landlord is responsible for maintaining, repairing the load bearing framework and all other structural parts of the building.
  2. The landlord’s repairs policy explains that it will respond to a:
    1. Emergency repair within 24 hours.
    2. Routine repair within 20 working days
  3. In addition, the landlord’s repairs policy states that it is responsible for insuring the properties which it owns and any works that the landlord is obliged to carry out may be covered by the buildings insurance. The policy also explains that residents are responsible for insuring their own contents.

Assessment

  1. On 11 April 2023, the resident submitted an enquiry to the landlord’s insurance team about repairs to damage to her property following her flat being flooded with sewage.
  2. The landlord failed to respond to the resident’s enquiry, therefore due to this, the resident emailed the landlord on 23 May 2023 chasing for an update on her insurance enquiry.2 days later, on 25 May 2023, the landlord responded to the resident and provided her with a blank insurance claim form for her to complete. It also asked the resi dent to obtain 2 estimates for the repairs and photo evidence of the damage to her property. The landlord responded appropriately by providing the resident with an insurance claim form to complete. However, the delay in providing the form was unreasonable.
  3. In June 2023, the landlord contacted the resident twice to remind her to complete the insurance claim form. Following this, the resident sent the completed property damage insurance claim form to the landlord on 21 August 2023, which needed to be passed on to the building insurer. The resident explained in the insurance claim form that there was a blockage in the communal stack pipe, which resulted in sewage water overflowing from the toilet, sink and bath into her property. She stated that the sewage water had soaked underneath the carpet and underlay so they required replacement. The resident explained in the claim form that she received a quote for £4354.50 to replace the damaged flooring.
  4. Shortly after, the resident submitted the insurance claim form to the landlord’s insurance team. The resident experienced further flooding at her property and reported this to the landlord on 29 August 2024. Following the report, a plumber attended the resident’s property on 30 August 2024 and the plumbing costs were invoiced to the resident. The plumber’s notes state that he could not identify any signs of a leak. In addition, the plumber’s notes confirmed he had inspected the stack pipe and the surrounding areas and there were no signs of water. In addition, on 31 August 2023, the landlord’s maintenance engineer visited the resident’s property and identified no visible leaks. The landlord took reasonable steps by arranging for its maintenance engineer to inspect the resident’s property following the attendance of the plumber to inspect the reported leak.
  5. On 11 September 2023, the resident contacted the landlord for an update on her insurance claim submission. The landlord acknowledged in its stage 1 complaint response that there had been a delay in reviewing the insurance claim due to the insurance team being short–staffed. On 27 September 2023, the landlord’s insurance team submitted the resident’s claim form to building insurer for review. However, it also requested an additional estimated repair quote, which was in line with its insurance claim process. The resident provided the additional estimated quote to the landlord on 3 October 2023, and she explained she was informed by the flooring contractor that an environmental clean would be required before new flooring could be installed. The Ombudsman recognises that the landlord’s delay in submitting the insurance claim form was unreasonable and would have inconvenienced the resident as she could not proceed with repairing the damage to inside of her property until her claim form had been processed.
  6. On 17 October 2023, the resident contacted the landlord and explained that the insurance team had informed her that the building insurance would not cover the cost of the carpets. She also queried the landlord about her plumbing costs being reimbursed. The landlord agreed in its stage 1 complaint response that it would reimburse the plumbing costs after it had received a copy of the invoices. The landlord acted reasonably by agreeing to refund the plumbing costs incurred by the resident, particularly as the sewage leak was due to the landlord’s blocked communal stack pipe.
  7. In November 2023, the landlord’s contractor carried out water jetting of the communal stack pipe to prevent any further blockages. In addition, the landlord agreed it would complete water jetting of the communal stack pipe annually to prevent future blockages. This was a reasonable step taken by the landlord to help prevent future sewage leaks into the resident’s property.
  8. In December 2023, the resident requested her complaint to be escalated to the next stage of the landlord’s complaint process. She was unhappy that the landlord failed to acknowledge its poor communication and also stated she understood the building insurance would not cover the carpet but explained that it should be covered by the landlord due to the damage being caused by the blocked communal stack pipe. The resident also stated that the landlord should pay for the excess on the building insurance.
  9. The landlord responded to the resident with its stage 2 complaint response in January 2024. It acknowledged and apologised for its poor communication and lack of support with the resident’s building insurance claim. The landlord also agreed to cover the costs of replacing the carpets in both her bedrooms, which the building insurer had confirmed it would not cover. The landlord asked the resident to send it estimated quotes to replace the carpets. The Ombudsman recognises the landlord acted fairly by offering to cover the costs to replace the carpets, and it was reasonable for it to do this, considering the sewage leak occurred due to the communal stack pipe being blocked. The landlord also confirmed that it had previously agreed to reimburse the resident for the cost she incurred for the plumbing visits. It also offered the resident £400 compensation, which included £300 compensation to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by the poor communication and delays, and £100 reimbursement of the insurance excess she paid. The compensation amount offered by the landlord was reasonable in this instance.
  10. After the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response to the resident there were delays in the landlord processing the resident’s compensation and reimbursement for the plumbing costs and carpet costs. Due to the delay, the resident wrote to the landlord in May 2024 stating that she was still awaiting to receive payment from the landlord. The landlord responded by letter on 10 June 2024, and it apologised for the delay in the resident receiving payment and acknowledged that it could have provided the refund sooner. The landlord confirmed it had raised a payment request for £4428.43, which included:
    1. £600 compensation it offered in its stage 2 complaint response. (This compensation amount figure had increased, as the stage 2 complaint response previously referenced £400 compensation).
    2. £474.00 reimbursement for the resident’s cleaning invoice.
    3. £2587.20 reimbursement for the resident’s flooring contactor invoice.
    4. £767.23 reimbursement for plumbing invoices.

In addition, the landlord also confirmed that it would pay the resident an additional £100 compensation to recognise its delay in processing the payment, which resulted in a total payment of £4528.43. The landlord confirmed it would not reimburse the resident’s hotel costs, as she had booked this without notifying the landlord. This was a reasonable response from the landlord, as it would have been appropriate for the resident to discuss with the landlord that she was seeking alternative temporary accommodation or alternatively claim on her buildings insurance if she wanted these costs covered.

  1. The Ombudsman recognises it must have been difficult for the resident to deal with the delays caused by the landlord and live with the damage for a considerable amount of time. However, the compensation offered for distress and inconvenience and the reimbursement of the carpet replacement was compliant with the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance (published on our website), which sets out the Ombudsman’s approach to compensation. The remedies guidance suggests awards of £1000 or more where there have been serious failings by the landlord, which had a significant long-term impact on the resident. The compensation proportionately reflects the significant impact of the distress and inconvenience on the resident, and it amounts to reasonable redress in this case for the landlord’s handling of damage caused to the resident’s property following a sewage leak due to a blocked communal stack pipe.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation, which in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the complaint about the landlord’s handling of damage caused to the resident’s property due to a blocked communal stack pipe.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord pay the resident its original offer made during the complaints process which included compensation for distress and inconvenience and a reimbursement of the invoice costs provided by the resident, if it has not already done so. The payment totalled £4528.43. The Ombudsman’s finding that there was reasonable redress by the landlord in this case is based on the understanding that this compensation will be paid.