Notting Hill Genesis (NHG) (202204365)

Back to Top

A blue and grey text Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202204365

Notting Hill Genesis (NHG)

24 July 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 refers to the landlord’s handling of estate management matters and repairs reported by the resident as follows:
    1. Paving around the front entrance.
    2. Repainting the front door.
    3. Garden maintenance and hedge planting.
    4. Nesting pigeons and installing a deterrent.
    5. Roof repairs following storm damage.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling and record keeping.

Background

  1. The resident holds an assured tenancy with the landlord, which began on 24 February 2003. The resident lives in a one bedroom second floor flat. The block of flats has a surrounding garden area along with a paved area leading to a communal front door.  The landlord has no recorded vulnerabilities for the resident.
  2. The resident states that she has reported issues, including garden maintenance, nesting pigeons, and paving around the front entrance, since August 2021.
  3. In response to an initial complaint (complaint A) on 17 February 2022, when the resident referred to her service requests made in August 2021, the landlord issued a stage 1 response on 11 March 2022. It apologised for the response delay, set out proposed remedial works (eg repainting of the communal front door) and offered £100 compensation.
  4. When the resident accepted the compensation on 14 March 2022, she said the landlord’s stage 1 response had not dealt with the front paving and nesting pigeons.
  5. The resident made a further complaint (complaint B) on 6 June 2022 raising the non completion of the remedies the landlord had committed to in its response to her earlier complaint, as well as introducing new complaints (eg the roof was unsafe following storm damage). Complaint B was treated as a new stage 1 by the landlord.
  6. The landlord issued a new stage 1 response on 8 June 2022, which addressed both the original complaint and the new factors.
  7. The resident contacted this Service on 31 May 2022 as she continued to be dissatisfied. Following this Service’s intervention, the landlord informed us on 24 June 2022 that it had issued two stage 1 responses and would escalate both her complaints. It issued a stage 2 response on 19 October 2022, which addressed the matters in both the resident’s complaints. It also offered £200 compensation.
  8. The resident escalated her complaint to the Ombudsman as she is seeking a review of the compensation offered. She has also told us that the garden maintenance issues continue.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. While the resident states there have been property maintenance issues dating back to August 2021, the scope of this investigation has been limited to considering matters raised in the 6 months prior to the resident making a formal complaint (complaint B). In line with paragraph 42(c) of the Scheme operated at the time this investigation will only consider matters raised from 5 December 2021 until the landlord issued its stage 2 response on 19 October 2022. Relevant factors outside this period may however be referenced for contextual purposes.

The landlord’s handling of estate management matters and repairs reported by the resident

  1. The tenancy agreement states the landlord is responsible for keeping in good repair the structure and exterior of the property (gutters, roof, doors, and pathway). It commits to repairing reported defects “as soon as reasonably possible”. This reflects its statutory duty under section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 which also confirms a landlord must complete repairs within a reasonable time.
  2. The resident handbook states routine repairs will be conducted within 20 working days of a report and emergency repairs within 24 hours.
  3. The landlord’s estate management policy says its contractors maintain grounds (eg weeding and, plant and shrub maintenance). It will raise “dissatisfactory care of gardens” with contractors and resolve issues quickly. In addition, it states it will ensure there are no health and safety risks to residents and visitors to its estates (eg trip hazards). Its estate/scheme management procedure clarifies it will aim to provide a “consistent service” across all its estates.

Paving around the front entrance

  1. While it is outside the investigation timeframe, the evidence provided shows that in August 2021 the resident reported “sinking brickwork paving” outside the communal front door. She said it was a hazard for residents. The evidence provided includes photographs, which show the paving was not level. The resident included this issue within complaint A on 17 February 2022.
  2. The landlord has not provided this Service with repair records or inspection reports, but its stage 2 response confirmed the completion of the repair. It states in the response that an inspection in August 2022 took place when it confirmed there was no longer a trip hazard. Based on the time period considered by this investigation, it took approximately 8 months for this repair to be resolved, which far exceeded its routine repairs timeframe. The unacceptable delay before the paving was repaired had the potential to expose residents, some more vulnerable than others, to a health and safety risk which was not compliant with its stated policy values or its section 11 duty.

Repainting the front door

  1. The resident’s complaint A, in February 2022, referenced her report of August 2021 when she said that a graffitied message on the communal front door was “just not nice to look at”.
  2. The evidence provided does not show when the landlord’s contractors initially painted the door. The evidence does however show that the resident emailed a further report on 5 May 2022 advising that the bottom of the door had not been painted. Again, the evidence supplied does not show when the door was repainted, but the landlord’s stage 2 response of 8 June 2022 does confirm the repainting works were complete. Based on the limited evidence provided, we have been able to estimate that the final works were completed approximately 9 months after the resident’s report and therefore, outside its repairs timeframe.
  3. The evidence does not show a post inspection of the door works after it was initially painted and had one taken place, the landlord may have identified the faulty paint works and proactively taken steps to rectify it. Rather the further repainting of the door appears from the evidence to have been prompted by the resident’s further report, which was unsatisfactory.
  4. While it is appreciated the resident would have experienced frustration due to the delays and issues around the paint works being completed, she was not otherwise adversely impacted by this service failure other than the time and trouble required to chase effective resolution.

Garden maintenance and hedge planting

  1. The resident’s complaint A again referenced her August 2021 report when she flagged poor garden maintenance. The original report stated the garden was not being maintained, was overgrown and she had asked the landlord to replace a dead hedge at the front of the building.
  2. While the landlord in its complaint A stage 1 response of 11 March 2022 said it would arrange for the works to be done and would consider a new hedge, she was not given a timeframe for the works. The evidence shows she sent 5 emails in May 2022 requesting an update. By not providing a timetabled action plan, which it could monitor, it missed an opportunity to show it was being proactive or committed to its policy aims to resolve issues quickly.
  3. In its complaint B stage 1 response of 8 June 2022, the landlord advised the garden maintenance works had been completed but the evidence provided does not show when or how the garden works were carried out. Further, the landlord did not mention replanting the hedge. This was a further missed opportunity to resolve the issues at this stage as the resident was then put to the time and trouble of sending at least 9 further emails to it, from June to October 2022, chasing updates about the hedge.
  4. During the 10 month period considered by this investigation, the hedge was not replanted. This was confirmed in the complaint B stage 2 response of 19 October 2022. While it is outside the timeframe of this investigation the wider email evidence provided shows the hedge was planted on 12 January 2023, which for context purposes only, was approximately 17 months from service request to final resolution. The delays during the period being considered by this investigation were not in keeping with the landlord’s policy aims to resolve matters quickly and were therefore unsatisfactory.

Nesting pigeons and installing a deterrent

  1. The resident first reported pigeons nesting in the rooftop guttering in August 2021. She asked for the guttering to be cleared and a pigeon deterrent to be installed. The original report was flagged by her in complaint A in February 2022 as outstanding.
  2. After the landlord failed to update the resident following its complaint A stage 1 response of 11 March 2022, she sent another 5 emails to it asking for an update before she formally complained on 6 June 2022. She explained the guttering was blocked and there were “pigeon droppings” over the front building entrance and gate, which resident had to touch, and it was therefore a health and safety issue. After the resident sent at least 9 further emails chasing an update, the spikes were eventually installed on 22 September 2022. This was over a year after she originally reported the issue in August 2021 and 7 months after first formally complaining about the inaction. The delay in resolving this repair was unacceptable.
  3. The evidence provided does not set out when the guttering was cleared. The absence of information around the clearing of the blocked guttering is concerning as this means this Service is unable to confirm if and when the landlord took appropriate remedial action, and whether it was in line with its policy and statutory responsibilities. We can presume the guttering was cleared in or around September 2022, which was when the spikes were installed to the rooftop guttering by the simple fact that the resident no longer reported the issue thereafter. As the issue was first reported by her in August 2021, the remedial works exceeded the landlord’s routine repairs timeframe and its section 11 duty to complete repairs within a reasonable time.
  4. In September 2022, the resident queried why the spikes had not been installed over the entire rooftop. In its stage 2 response, the landlord confirmed the spikes were installed to prevent nesting pigeons “overhanging the walkway” and installing them over the whole roof was not considered to be “feasible”. As the resident had reported “pigeon droppings” around the front building entrance and gate, the location of the spikes reasonably and proportionately addressed her concerns. The landlord also confirmed it was consulting with pest control experts to prevent roosting pigeons in the future, which was an appropriate step and showed it took her concerns seriously.

Roof repairs following storm damage

  1. The evidence shows the resident reported roof damage in an email on 5 May 2022. She said it had not been repaired after a storm “a few months before” and the damaged roof was unsafe and a risk to residents. In her complaint of 6 June 2022, she said the roof damage had not been inspected despite tiles and roofing sections falling into nearby resident’s gardens and damaging an adjoining roof after the storm. The evidence does not indicate when the damage took place or the extent of the damage.
  2. This Service has not been provided with repair records confirming completion of the roofing works, but the wider email evidence shows the works were done on 30 June 2022. The landlord’s failure to keep the roof in good repair within a reasonable time in line with its section 11 duty was unacceptable. The evidence indicates the landlord was aware of the roof disrepair prior to the resident’s report as it advised in its 8 June 2022 response that remedial works were incorrectly logged by it after the storm and following her report it said the roof repairs had been re-raised. While this Service has not been provided with details of when the storm damage occurred, there was an unreasonable delay to repair the roof given its awareness of the roof damage prior to the resident’s report.

Final assessment

  1. Overall, the landlord was reactive to reports as can be seen from the works that followed the resident’s report of disrepair to the roof. Its regular estate inspections should have alerted it to the outstanding issues especially given the resident’s regular reports and requests for updates. Further, it failed to prioritise repairs reflecting increased safety concerns (eg painting the front door twice before levelling the front entrance paving). All the repairs and the estate maintenance work (eg hedge replacement) were subject to unreasonable delays. While the resident would have been more directly and adversely impacted by some issues (eg pigeon excrement and “sinking” paving) over others (eg hedge replanting), it is clear from the evidence she was inconvenienced and frustrated by repeatedly raising the same issues and spending time and trouble in pursuance of a resolution.
  2. The resident has told this Service the garden maintenance issues continue. The evidence shows the landlord has tried to learn from its mistakes by arranging for its garden maintenance contractor to attend monthly estate inspections. While it is outside the timeframe of this investigation, it is noted in June 2024 the landlord’s contractors added the site on which the resident’s building is located to a “separate service appointment” to improve monitoring.
  3. While the landlord has acknowledged failings, offered compensation, and apologised for stress and inconvenience, it has failed to properly address or offer a remedy and apology proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation. Its initial failures to respond to the August 2021 reports were then compounded by delays in effecting the remedies following the resident’s formal complaints and during the period of this investigation’s scope. By not taking more proactive and timely action the resident was subject to an avoidable and extended period of detriment. When all factors are considered, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of estate management matters and repairs in response to the resident’s reports.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s complaints procedure states that it operates a two-stage complaint process with responses being issued within 10 working days at stage 1 and 20 working days at stage 2.
  2. The landlord’s compensation and goodwill gestures procedure set out when compensation will or might be paid to a resident. Discretionary payments can be made for inconvenience, hardship, distress or ‘making good’. It includes a table for service failure with banded payments based on impact on the resident.
  3. The supplied evidence does not show complaint A was acknowledged within 2 working days in line with the landlord’s policy. Furthermore, while it is noted the landlord informed this Service on 24 June 2022, it would escalate the resident’s complaint, the supplied evidence does not show it sent an acknowledgement to the resident of her review request, which was unsatisfactory.
  4. The landlord’s complaint A response was issued after 16 working days at stage 1 which was outside its policy timescales and therefore, not compliant with it.
  5. In its complaint A stage 1 response, it failed to consider all the resident’s complaints (eg paving and pigeons). The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) at the time stated that landlords must address all points raised in a complaint. By only responding to a limited number of the resident’s complaints (eg painting the front door), the landlord breached the Code.
  6. Further, the complaint A stage 1 response did not address all the complaints properly. For example, while the landlord said it would consider the resident’s request for a new hedge, it failed to say when or how it would do this. The resident again found herself in a position of chasing it following its non-compliance with its policy commitments to send an “action plan …detailing the timescales for completing any outstanding actions”. In May 2022, she sent 5 emails flagging the hedge before making complaint B on 6 June 2022. This was unsatisfactory and clearly frustrating for the resident.
  7. On 2 August 2022, this Service sent the resident copies of the complaint A and B stage 1 responses. She told this Service on 7 August that she had not seen the complaint B response of 8 June before. The supplied evidence does not show how and when this response was sent to her (eg a dated email attaching the response). It is of utmost importance a landlord ensures its complaint responses are received by residents in line with its policy commitments, so residents feel their complaints are being listened to and taken seriously.
  8. It is noted in an email to this Service on 24 June 2022, the landlord said it would escalate both complaints A and B. We asked it for the resident’s escalation request and to clarify if there was a second stage 2 response issued aside from the 19 October 2022 response. The landlord has not provided the evidence requested. As the complaint A stage 1 response was issued on 11 March 2022, an escalation would not have been in line with its policy deadlines for escalations. The response to this Service on 24 June 2022 shows poor oversight of its complaints process and a reactive approach to complaint handling.
  9. Given the resident told this Service she did not receive the complaint B stage 1 response of 8 June 2022, it is unclear if an escalation request was in fact received when the landlord told this Service on 24 June 2022 that it intended to escalate her complaints. While we have requested, but not been provided with the resident’s escalation request, the evidence shows its stage 2 response of 19 October 2022 was issued approximately 3 months after it said the complaint would be escalated. This was outside its policy timescales, which was unsatisfactory.
  10. The landlord’s complaints process is an opportunity to show residents it takes their complaints seriously, build trust and proactively resolve complaints. Its compensation process allows for an alternative way to remedy service failings. It is accepted it appropriately attempted to make things right by compensating the resident for complaint response delays, but the compensation offered and accompanying apologies were inadequate and not reflective of the detriment identified by this investigation to the resident. The resident’s frustration is clearly communicated by her, in the supplied evidence, when she is put to the time and trouble of repeatedly requesting updates. It is the view of this Service, the landlord failed to manage the resident’s complaints in a timely, reasonable, and comprehensive manner and consequently, there was maladministration in its complaint’s handling.

Record keeping

  1. The landlord’s record keeping indicates considerable issues. We asked it to provide evidence in the form of, for example, all correspondence and contact notes, repair logs, visit records, complaint records, and inspection reports. The evidence provided contains significant omissions including, but not limited to:
    1. Copies of inspection reports (eg 2 and 24 March 2022, and August 2022).
    2. Completion notes, repair records or post-inspection reports concerning the repairs subject to this investigation (eg paving and roof works, and pigeon spike installation and gutter clearing).
    3. The resident’s escalation request leading to the stage 2 response of 19 October 2022.
    4. Evidence to confirm if the 19 October 2022 response was the only stage 2 response issued after the landlord informed this Service on 24 June 2022 that complaints A and B would both be escalated.
  2. This Service’s spotlight report on knowledge and information finds poor record keeping is a “key contributing factor” for failures with landlord “repairs service and in complaints”. It states, “the failings to create and record information accurately results in landlords not taking appropriate and timely action, missing opportunities to identify that actions were wrong or inadequate, and contributing to inadequate communication and redress.”
  3. Due to gaps in the repair records provided, this investigation has needed to piece together when repairs were completed from references to events within the wider correspondence. For example, the date of the completion of roof repairs was identified from an email sent by the resident on 30 June 2022.
  4. Clear record keeping is essential to enable landlords to monitor outstanding works, contractor performance, and provide effective services to its residents. The evidence provided shows instances when, had it not been for the resident’s further reports, repairs may not have occurred or been further delayed (eg door repainting and roof repairs).
  5. The significant gaps in the supplied evidence indicates poor record keeping by the landlord as it was not able to provide the relevant information when asked. A landlord should keep accurate and easily accessible records of contacts and repairs to provide an audit trail. If there is disputed evidence and no audit trail, we may not be able to conclude an action took place (eg gutter clearing) or the landlord followed its own policies and procedures. Overall, the Ombudsman finds maladministration by the landlord for its poor record keeping.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of estate management matters and repairs reported by the resident.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s record keeping.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to take the following action within 4 weeks of the date of this report. The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with evidence that it has complied with these orders:
    1. Pay directly to the resident a total of £800. This figure includes the landlord’s redress offer of £300 if it has not made this payment already. The compensation comprises:
      1. £400 for its handling of estate management matters and repairs reported by the resident. This reflects the detriment to the resident in the form of stress, time and trouble, and inconvenience.
      2. £250 for its complaint handling failures. This reflects the detriment to the resident in the form of frustration, time and trouble, and inconvenience.
      3. £150 for its handling of poor record keeping.
    2. Write an apology to the resident for the failures in its service. The landlord’s apology should:
    1. Acknowledge the failings identified.
    2. Accept responsibility for it.
    3. Where appropriate, include assurances that the same failings should not occur again and set out what steps have been taken to prevent a recurrence.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 54(g) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord should undertake a senior management review of the case and present the findings to its senior leadership team and this Service within 8 weeks. The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with evidence that it has complied with these orders. The review should:
    1. Consider additional training on complaint handling to prevent:
      1. Complaint response delays.
      2. Partial or incomplete responses to resident complaints.
      3. Inadequate resolution of complaints with non-compliance with policy commitments for action plans with timescales.
      4. Residents not receiving complaint responses.
      5. Missing complaint records (ie complaints, acknowledgement, responses, and escalations).
    2. Undertake and complete a review of its services and practices on this case against this Service’s spotlight report on knowledge and information management in view of the missing evidence highlighted in this investigation, including its contractor’s records. The report has recommendations, which if it has not done so already, it should consider incorporating into its policies for accurate record keeping.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord contacts the resident to provide her with a timetable for its regular estate inspections, including garden maintenance visits, to ensure she or other residents are able to attend or have the opportunity to raise issues for consideration.