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

Notting Hill Genesis (202001127)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202001127

Notting Hill Genesis

10 February 2021


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 how the landlord had responded to the resident’s reports of issues with the satellite signal serving his property.

Jurisdiction

  1. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
  2. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments regarding his mental health, but this Service is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. However, the Housing Ombudsman has considered the general distress and inconvenience which the situation has caused the resident.

 

  1. The resident may be able to make a personal injury claim against the landlord if he considers that his health has been affected by the landlord’s actions. This is a legal process and the resident should seek independent legal advice if he wants to pursue this option. The Ombudsman is unable to give legal advice and therefore this matter will not be discussed further in this report. This is an accordance with paragraph 39(i) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme which says the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, a designated person, other tribunal or procedure.

 

 

 

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The property is a flat situated in a building with similar properties.
  2. The landlord has a management company who is responsible for dealing with services associated to the building, such as the repair of the building’s communal satellite dish.

Summary of events

  1. On 16 May 2020, the resident reported that his satellite dish signal was not working. The landlord informed the resident that a neighbour had already reported the issue, engineers were working on it and parts were required in order to carry out the repair to the satellite dish. The landlord explained that once the parts had been delivered, the repair would be carried out.
  2. The resident requested for a formal complaint to be logged on 16 May 2020 which mentioned that he was denied the request to have his own engineer fix the loss of signal to the satellite dish sooner and he was unhappy about this. He also highlighted that he felt this repair was not taken seriously and it was not treated as an emergency.
  3. On 17 May 2020, the resident requested to have his own engineer to come out and do the repairs and recharge the landlord  for the cost of the repair.
  4. The repair was completed on 19 May 2020 by the landlord’s contractor.
  5. The landlord issued the stage one complaint response on 21 May 2020 which explained the following:
    1. The complaint which the resident raised was acknowledged. The landlord apologised for the inconvenience caused by the problem with the satellite. The landlord confirmed that the satellite was repaired and returned to full service as of 19 May 2020.
    2. The landlord explained the reasons for the slight delay in carrying out the repair, stating that parts were required to complete the work; the parts were ordered and the landlord’s intention was to fit the parts by the following Monday. However, it took longer than expected and the landlord apologised for the delay.
  6. On 25 May 2020, the resident contacted the landlord requesting for his complaint to be escalated to stage two of the landlord’s complaints process. The resident expressed dissatisfaction by questioning the landlord in the letter about why he was left without TV for days and was unhappy that his Housing Officer did not make contact with the resident during his stage one complaint. The resident also claimed that it was his ‘’human right’’ to satellite TV.
  7. The landlord issued the stage two complaint response on 22 June 2020. The landlord acknowledged and addressed the complaint in three parts:
    1. ‘’Satellite failure within the block and the contractor did not take it seriously’’. The landlord concluded that the four-day wait was acceptable considering the lockdown restrictions in place at the time, where sourcing parts were more challenging. The landlord noted that its desire was to resolve the matter quickly. This part of the resident’s complaint was not upheld.
    2. ‘’Refused request to appoint his own contractors’’. The landlord explained that the refusal was reasonable as the landlord had appointed contractors. The landlord concluded that having no satellite signal was not an emergency and four days was a satisfactory time to resolve the matter.
    3. ‘’No contact from his Housing Officer at stage one complaint’’. The landlord explained that the Housing Officer acknowledged the complaint on 18 May 2020 and responded to the resident via email. As the resident raised the complaint on a weekend, the landlord agreed that the complaint was still acknowledged within twenty-four hours which was in line with the landlord’s Service Level Agreement; therefore this part of the complaint was not upheld.
  8. The landlord also addressed the resident’s comments regarding his ‘’human right to satellite’’ in the stage two response and explained that ‘’there is no human right to satellite TV’ which was clarified by the ‘’Equality & Human Rights Commission, who explained that the ruling does not give tenants a right to receive satellite TV’’. The landlord concluded that there was no service failure in this regard.
  9. The landlord resent the stage two response to the resident on 21 July 2020  following contact from the Housing Ombudsman as the resident had told the Ombudsman that he had not received a stage two response from the landlord. 

Assessment and findings

17. The resident was unhappy that the loss of signal was not treated as an emergency. However, in line with the landlord’s Tenant Guide, the loss of a satellite signal would not constitute an emergency. The landlord’s Tenant Guide states ‘’an emergency is an urgent repair which cannot wait, for example, an uncontrollable leak or an unsecured door etc’’. Therefore, although the loss of the satellite signal would be an inconvenience to the resident, the landlord was correct not to consider this repair as an emergency. The loss of signal did not pose an immediate and significant risk to health and safety as would be expected for an emergency repair issue.

  1. In accordance with the landlord’s Repair Handbook, the repair of the satellite dish may come under ‘’Routine Repair Appointments’’ as this was not constituted as an emergency repair. The Repairs Handbook states that routine repairs will normally be dealt with within twenty days of the report of the issue. In this instance, the landlord attended the matter the same day it was reported and informed the resident of this. However, parts were required so the landlord updated the resident and said that it would resolve the issue once parts had been delivered. The landlord remedied the issue within a four-day timeframe. The Ombudsman agrees that a four-day wait for a satellite signal to be fixed is a reasonable amount of time as it was handled within the twenty-day period of the initial report in line with the Repair Policy. To put matters right, the landlord offered an apology for the delay in repairs which was adequate redress as the landlord had to wait for the parts to be delivered and had informed the resident of this.
  1. The landlord refused the resident’s request to have his own contractors, which this Service finds reasonable because the satellite dish feeds to multiple properties, therefore it is a communal area and the landlord is obliged to complete all communal repairs, as per its Repairs Handbook. In addition, the landlord has its own management company which is listed in the Repairs Handbook who deal with services related to the resident’s property such as the satellite dish. It would be inappropriate for the landlord to pay for another contractor to carry out the repair outside its existing contractual arrangements with the management company.
  2. In summary, whilst it can be distressing to not have a working satellite signal as a TV is a form of engagement and entertainment, this was a reasonable response as not having a satellite signal is not classed as an emergency. The repair was carried out within a reasonable timeframe, in accordance with is obligations, and the landlord kept the resident updated with any delays.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s reports of issues with the communal satellite signal.

Reasons

  1. The landlord attended to resolve the issue on the same day that it was reported. However, it could not complete the repair due to parts being required and the landlord kept the resident informed about this. The repair was completed within the landlord’s stipulated timescales for a routine repair. The Ombudsman believes this to be reasonable as a loss in satellite signal is not an emergency repair and four days is a reasonable time to respond to this sort of repair.
  2. The landlord acted reasonably by refusing the resident’s request to appoint his own contractors to resolve the issue as the satellite dish is a communal repair which feeds to multiple residents and the other residents. All communal repairs should be completed by the landlord’s appointed management company which is in line with its Repairs Handbook.