Notting Hill Genesis (202005440)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202005440

Notting Hill Genesis

4 August 2022

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

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about:
1. Repairs in the property.
2. Communal maintenance.
3. Communal parking.
4. Communal antisocial behaviour (‘ASB’).

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The property is a house on an estate. This investigation understands that part of the estate is managed by the landlord and part is managed by another social landlord (or that grounds managed by the landlord border those managed by another social landlord).
This investigation understands that estate car parking serves the residents of both landlords and that an arrangement is in place for this to be managed by a single parking enforcement company. The landlord’s parking policies advise that it may use external parking enforcement; that complaints about the parking enforcement company should be directed to the company; and that parking enforcement contracts should have agreements in place which facilitate calls to the company from the landlord and residents.

Summary of events

In September 2020, the resident contacted this Service and raised concern about an uneven floor; outstanding bathroom repairs; ASB; communal maintenance; and a lack of enforcement of non-residents parking on the estate. The resident said she had complained since October 2019 but issues had dragged on after the landlord had said it would look into them.
Neither the landlord or resident provide much evidence for events prior to September 2020, however the information provided advises that in July 2020, the landlord was contacted by the other social landlord to arrange a joint inspection of the estate. The landlord responded that it was not currently conducting site visits under its current working arrangements for Covid-19, but that the separate social landlord could contact it if required.
After the Ombudsman’s referral, the landlord had communications and telephone conversations with the resident, then provided its stage one response to the complaint on 15 October 2020:
1. It explained that it underwent a merger in 2019, which affected housing officer patches and working practises. It acknowledged and apologised for frustration caused by housing officer changes and a lack of continuity. It noted these had coincided with Covid-19 which had disrupted the way it worked, its relationship with tenants and its resolution of certain issues.
2. It said that there had been no interruption to cleaning and maintenance during Covid-19 and that there would be no reduction in service charges. It advised that any estate issues would be aimed to be picked up at monthly inspections, but said if the resident had future concerns about the cleaning she could provide pictures and these would be discussed with the contractor. The landlord’s records confirm it took steps to review contractor cleaning photos and system records since March 2020 in its investigation.
3. It said there had been no interruption to parking services during Covid-19, and it explained the parking contractor often issued tickets electronically so offending vehicles may not display tickets. It provided details for the parking contractor for the resident to report offending vehicles.
4. It said it empathised with concerns the resident had raised about communal ASB, but advised that some issues did not constitute ASB that it could directly resolve. It advised that issues with drug use and dealing on the estate should be reported to the police to deter such behaviour. It noted that prior to lockdown police used to meet with residents to listen to their concerns, and it would update the resident if the sessions started again. The landlord’s records note that drug issues were never witnessed during visits to the estate.
5. It advised that fly tipping on its side of the estate would be attended to by its contractors, and it would endeavour to liaise with the other social landlord about fly tipping that occurred on their side, as well as about a mirror that kept getting broken (which this investigation understands covered a blind corner).
6. It said it looked like a flooring repair raised in March 2020 was cancelled in error. It advised that it would re-raise and monitor the repair and update the resident with progress. It also said it would keep her updated about a new repair raised for bathroom tiles. It apologised for the delay and any inconvenience caused and awarded £30. It advised that comments the resident had made had been highlighted internally for service improvement.
7. The landlord addressed issues it noted the resident had raised about a gas safety check, and it concluded that it was seeking to work to make the estate a more pleasant place to live and welcomed residents’ suggestions.
The following day, the landlord’s surveyor attended the property to inspect the flooring, for which it was noted that contractors had previously provided a quote for extensive works to replace cracked lounge flooring. This investigation understands this quote was supplied in March 2020 and was rejected due to a lack of evidence that the repairs were required. The surveyor, who did not supply their findings until a month later, reported that they did not find evidence of the crack and that the previous quote went beyond works required. The surveyor advised that there was evidence of uneven floor around a patio door, and they recommended works to remove a flooring section; level the floor with screed; and then reinstate the flooring.
On 30 October 2020, a contractor then attended the property in respect to the bathroom tiles. The contractor noted that the resident wanted non-matching bathroom tiles to be renewed but reported that the tiles did not require repair, so the landlord’s confirmation would be required to carry out the works.
On 4 November 2020, the resident replied to the landlord’s stage one complaint response:
1. She commented that a more efficient service was previously provided and there had been no explanation about how service would be improved. She reported that customer service staff were inefficient and contacting housing managers had become increasingly difficult.
2. She queried whether the cleaning contractors had, if attending as claimed, made the landlord or the other social landlord aware of furniture that had been dumped at the side of her house for over four weeks.
3. She said she had raised parking issues previously, including in June 2020, and had received inconclusive responses from the landlord. She detailed issues with parking by non-residents and disputed if they had ever received physical or electronic parking tickets.
4. She advised she accepted the apology and compensation for the flooring repair, but raised concern about the lack of explanation provided. She detailed that flooring was initially raised in 2016; works were carried out in 2018; and updates for when the repair would be completed were chased in October 2019 and January 2020. She said that over the past two years there had been multiple visits from the landlord and its contractor, for which she had taken time off, and that the lack of progress merited further investigation.
5. She noted a repair had been raised for the bathroom tiles but no explanation had been provided for the delays, and she queried if there was an update after a contractor had attended on 30 October 2020.
6. She acknowledged that some concerns did not fall under the landlord’s remit, but she advised that there were ways it could support residents such as visit the estate; fix a mirror that covered a blind corner; check CCTV on the estate; install CCTV in secluded areas; speak to non-residents about parking and fly tipping on the estate; and be proactive about liaising with the police in respect to meetings and other issues.
On 17 November 2020, the landlord informed the resident that the complaint had been escalated following her email, but it sought to address some of the issues:
1. It said it did not have the facility to see where registered car owners lived, and that as the parking contractor issued electronic rather than physical tickets, it would not be possible for anyone to know who has or has not been ticketed.
2. It said its cleaners were supposed to report bulk waste to a specific team, and if there were instances this had not happened, it would bring this up internally. It noted that it had not received many reports of fly tipping and that this was more of an issue on the other social landlord’s grounds.
3. It noted that it had replaced a mirror the resident mentioned in the past, however this was on the grounds of the other social landlord’s grounds who were responsible for the replacement. It advised that it had contacted the other social landlord so they were aware.
4. It said that the CCTV the resident said it should check were not its cameras or on its land. It said that CCTV could be looked into but this would require resident consultation and increase service charges.
The landlord has noted that the complaint was then closed after the resident agreed to withdraw the escalation request. The landlord noted that she was happy if it handled the outstanding repairs but wanted clarification on what had led to repairs delays in the first place.
The landlord took steps to investigate why the flooring repair was not completed when reported four years prior, and it requested internal assistance to find out when the job was raised, when contractors attended and reasons it was not completed. The landlord has noted that a repair history was unable to be provided due to changes since the repair had been reported, which it is unclear was communicated to the resident around this time.
In March 2021, the information provided advises that the landlord was contacted by the other social landlord to note that, at inspection, cars had got out of control, and so they had asked a new parking contractor to take over the parking control management.
In April 2021, the resident contacted this Service to report that nothing had been done by the landlord, after which the landlord contacted the resident to clarify the unresolved issues.
On 1 June 2021, the landlord provided its final response to the complaint:
1. It noted that after the resident reported flooring in January 2020 and its contractors inspected in February 2020, the contractors provided a quote in March 2020 but were not instructed to do the works, due to the length of time the approval took and the start of the Covid-19 pandemic. It noted that the resident chased the repair on 4 and 17 August 2020 without any reply until a complaint was logged in October 2020. It then noted that after an inspection on 16 October 2020, a 16 November 2020 surveyor report that detailed what needed to be done was not progressed until June 2021. It confirmed it had now raised a repair to level the flooring section, and acknowledged the length of time the repair had taken to get to that stage was unacceptable. The landlord detailed steps it would take to monitor repairs and update the resident until it was satisfied all repairs had been addressed.
2. It noted that the resident had reported an outstanding tiling repair in August 2020, and advised that the job was closed down after contractors attended on 30 October 2020 and reported that the tiles did not require repair. It noted the resident reported that the repair was still outstanding and there was mould as a result of defective tiling, and it advised a surveyor inspection had been arranged to investigate this. It advised that if the surveyor identified the tiles need repairing, it would arrange for contractors to carry out the work; however, if the surveyor confirmed the tiles were in a good state of repair, the job would remain closed.
3. It noted recent inspections found the estate to be clean but there was an ongoing issue with fly tipping. It noted it had removed some car tyres and would continue to inspect the estate, but it asked the resident to report any bulk waste she noticed so it could arrange for this to be removed.
4. It noted that the car park was shared land between itself and the other social landlord, and had agreed for a parking contractor to manage the parking arrangements. It noted the parking contractor visited regularly (and internal records noted the landlord had visited), and it advised that if the resident noticed parking by unauthorised vehicles, she should report this to the parking contractor to fine the owner. The landlord advised it was in the process of changing to a different parking contractor, and confirmed a letter would soon be sent to the resident to inform her of this change and who to report parking offences to. The contemporaneous records show that the landlord informed the parking contractor about resident complaints and asked them to ticket unauthorised cars.
5. It acknowledged that it had let the resident down, its communication had been poor and it had delayed in response to her complaint, and it apologised for its service over the past sixteen months. It awarded £815 compensation, which its response broke down as £60 for repairs delays; £55 for service failures; and £700 for distress and inconvenience. The contemporaneous records show that the £700 was to also recognise issues with communication and repairs delays.
The same month, the landlord’s surveyor attended the property to inspect the bathroom tiles, for which it was noted two previous inspections had identified no works were required and their being no issue with the tiles apart from their not matching. The surveyor reported that the resident felt a new bathroom was needed due to the age and condition of the bath and damage to a bath grab, but found the bathroom to be in good working condition and of an acceptable standard. The property was however added to a ‘referral list’ for inclusion on the 2022 to 2023 bathroom renewal programme, after the surveyor recommended for the bathroom to be added to a future cyclical programme.
The resident subsequently informed this Service in August 2021 that she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response as the compensation offered in October 2020 and June 2021 had not been paid, and there had been a lack of contact to provide explanation about causes of delay for the bathroom and floor repairs. The resident also noted in correspondence to the landlord that fly tipped furniture was still there after being informed for several months that it would be imminently removed; that recent visits should have noted the estate was not being maintained as it should be; and that the compensation should reflect the £30 awarded in October 2020 and the tiles and mould being reported in 2017.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

When considering a complaint, this Service considers whether a complaint has exhausted a landlord’s complaints procedure, as the Ombudsman usually only investigates a complaint once a landlord has set out its position at the final stage of their complaints procedure. The resident was previously informed by this Service that there was no evidence that a complaint about damage to a wall caused by a contractor exhausted the complaints procedure. This investigation notes that the resident also complained about a lack of update for a complaint about staff, which there is also no evidence exhausted the complaints procedure.
When considering a complaint, this Service also considers the timeframes of when they are made, as complaints are usually expected to be made within a timely manner of when they occur. This is because the longer time goes on, the more difficult it is to conduct an effective investigation, for both the Ombudsman and a landlord. While the resident says she reported flooring, tiles and mould in 2016 and 2017, which provides useful background and context, the formal complaint here was not raised until three to four years later. This investigation therefore focuses on events from around January 2020, nine months prior to the resident’s formal complaint in October 2020, until the landlord’s final response in June 2021.
Finally, this investigation notes that the resident raised concerns about organisational changes that she felt led to a less efficient service and certain staff becoming more difficult to contact. The landlord’s broader decision-making about service delivery generally goes beyond this Service’s remit. However, the Ombudsman can assess whether the landlord appropriately considered matters within the timeframe of the complaint and reasonably responded to concerns raised about specific instances of service delivery presented – which this assessment goes on to do.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about repairs in the property

Under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 and the tenancy agreement, the landlord is obligated to keep in good repair the structure of the property, which would include the floors and structural defects that cause mould. There is no evidence that the landlord is obligated to ensure that tiles match.
The evidence shows that after the most recent report for the flooring in January 2020, reasonably timely action was taken to inspect and quote for the issue. However, there was a lack of effect resolution and communication after the March 2020 quote up until June 2021, despite contact from the resident on several occasions and the landlord’s commitment to monitor matters in October 2020. The multiple visits, delayed progress and communication in respect to the repair was inappropriate and will have caused frustration to the resident, so it was right that the landlord recognised this.
The evidence shows that after reports about the bathroom tiles, multiple inspections have found these to not require repair, and also found the bathroom to be in good working condition and of an acceptable standard. There is no evidence that inspections have identified mould to be a significant issue, and photographs of the bathroom give limited reason to query this. In light of this and the landlord having no obligation to ensure tiles match, there is limited evidence to show a failing by the landlord to tile the bathroom. Further, it is not in this Service’s authority or expertise to decide when a landlord should upgrade its housing stock, and it was positive that the landlord arranged for the property to be added to a referral list for a future bathroom renewal programme. However, there was an ongoing failing by the landlord to effectively communicate that it would not tile the bathroom. It should have taken the opportunity to correct the ongoing expectancy that it would tile the bathroom, particularly after the resident complained and its contractor inspected in October 2020. This was inappropriate and will have caused frustration to the resident, so it was again right that the landlord recognised its communication failings.
This investigation notes some of the resident’s remaining dissatisfaction was that the landlord did not re-offer compensation from its stage one response, and did not offer compensation to reflect tiles and mould being reported in 2017.
The evidence shows that the landlord acknowledged, apologised and awarded compensation for the service issues, communication and repairs delays; and that the remedy considered the distress and inconvenience that will have been caused in respect to these. The landlord therefore considered appropriate factors when it assessed the amount of compensation that may be applicable. The final award of £815 does not seem a disproportionate amount of compensation as there is limited evidence to show the failings had a wider impact beyond what was identified. There is limited evidence, including from review of photographs, that further compensation is merited for the uneven flooring; and limited evidence that further compensation is merited for the tiles, considering the evidence and the landlord’s lack of obligation for these.
In its own Remedies Guidance, the Housing Ombudsman Service sets out three compensation ranges which this Service takes into account when determining cases. The financial remedy of £815 provided by the landlord falls in the top range, usually applicable to cases where there has been maladministration or severe maladministration, failings to meet service standards for responses and actions over long periods, and where issues have had a long term impact on the complainant. Accordingly, the financial remedy of £815 offered by the landlord is reasonably in line with this Service’s Remedies Guidance and, considering all of the circumstances of the case, in the Ombudsman’s opinion appears suitable financial redress.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about communal maintenance

The information provided suggests that a consequence of the dissatisfaction with the communal maintenance is a dissatisfaction with the service charges for this. The appropriate body that has jurisdiction to consider complaints about the level of the service charge is the First-Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber – Residential Property), which can determine the appropriate level and amount of service charges recoverable by a landlord; decide if the charges were reasonably incurred; by whom they are payable, and when. It is therefore not within the Ombudsman’s authority or expertise to decide on matters such as service charges in the same way as the courts, however we can assess whether the landlord has followed proper procedure, followed good practice, and behaved reasonably, taking account of all the circumstances of the case.
The evidence shows that the landlord took steps to assess reports about a lack of cleaning and maintenance by reviewing photographs and logs. This shows that the landlord considered and set out its position on this aspect in an informed and appropriate way that the Ombudsman would expect to see. The landlord was also reasonable to explain that it would not remove fly tipping, or fix a mirror that covered a blind corner, on the other social landlord’s part of the estate. It is not reasonable for the landlord to dedicate unnecessary resource to carry out the responsibilities of other landlords, particularly when this may distract from areas it is responsible for, or may increase its communal costs which in turn may lead to increases in communal service charges payable by its residents.
The resident’s account advises that some fly tipped furniture mentioned in November 2020 was still in situ in June 2021, eight months later, after being informed it would be imminently removed for several months. The information presented does not lead this investigation to find a service failing, as the resident’s account suggests that the landlord has not been unresponsive about the issue and there is no evidence that significant detriment will have been caused by the matter, however a recommendation is made in regard to this aspect.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about communal parking

This investigation notes that most recently, steps were being taken to replace the parking contractor, as the other social landlord felt parking had got out of control. This suggests there was basis to the resident’s concerns and this investigation would have liked to have seen evidence that in October 2020, the landlord informed the parking contractor about resident complaints and asked them to ticket unauthorised cars, in the way it did in June 2021. This and evidence of earlier discussions with the other social landlord would have demonstrated it was taking a proactive approach, particularly as the resident’s account advises parking issues were ongoing in October 2020 four months after being raised in June 2020.
However, the information presented does not show that the landlord’s initial response to refer the resident to the parking control contractor was not reasonable. The parking contractor was responsible for the parking enforcement, and they were the most appropriate party to receive and investigate initial reports from the resident about unauthorised parking, as well as complaints about the enforcement. The evidence does not show or report that attempts to raise the issue with the parking contractor were reasonably exhausted, or that the parking contractor failed to respond or engage in respect to concerns raised to them, before the issue was raised with the landlord.
While the above is the case, a recommendation is made for the landlord to review how it handles reports of insufficient parking enforcement to ensure and verify that parking contractors are meeting broader obligations to carry out effective enforcement.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about communal antisocial behaviour

The landlord has said that alleged drug issues were police matters, and has said that CCTV the resident asked it to check did not belong to it, which gives the impression that it would have no involvement in helping to tackle drug issues. This investigation would expect the landlord to take some steps to investigate drug issues, liaise with appropriate parties to review CCTV, and liaise with the police, where for example there may be sufficiently compelling evidence that tenant behaviour is in breach of the tenancy agreement.
However, the evidence does not show that the landlord has failed any expectations in respect to the above or communal ASB in this case. The reports and comments from the resident about communal ASB are limited; the landlord has noted that it has not noticed drug issues in its visits; and there is no evidence that the landlord has failed to ignore the resident’s reports about communal ASB. Based on the evidence available therefore, the landlord’s response to reports about communal ASB seems reasonable and proportionate.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about repairs in the property.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about communal maintenance.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about communal parking.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about communal antisocial behaviour.

Reasons

The landlord appropriately identified and acknowledged service failings and, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, made reasonable redress for the failings and the distress and inconvenience that will have been caused by these.
The landlord took steps to consider and address concerns about communal maintenance in a reasonable way and there is limited evidence for any significant failings based on the evidence available.
The landlord was reasonable to refer the resident to the parking contractor based on the evidence available.
The landlord took steps to consider and address concerns related to communal ASB in a reasonable and proportionate way based on the evidence available.

Orders and recommendations

Recommendations

The landlord to take steps to pay the resident the £815 it previously offered, if it has not done so already.
The landlord to take steps to confirm that the repair to level the section of lounge floor is complete, and to take appropriate action if it is not.
The landlord to ensure its repairs and complaints services effectively communicate repairs inspections outcomes to residents.
The landlord to review how it handles reports of fly tipping on the estate and manages resident expectations about its action in respect to these, in light of paragraph 32 of this report.
The landlord to review how it handles reports of insufficient parking enforcement to ensure that parking contractors meet broader obligations to carry out effective enforcement.