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

Notting Hill Genesis (202016415)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202016415

Notting Hill Genesis

9 August 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 the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the condition of her property at the start of her tenancy.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord. Her tenancy began on 21 December 2020. The property had been void (i.e. empty and unoccupied) before she moved in. The landlord had decorated some parts of it as part of its void preparations.
  2. On 4 January 2021 the resident emailed the landlord. She was dissatisfied with its paint work throughout the house. She also reported that her bathroom tiles were not sealed correctly, and that her bathroom basin had mould in, and around it. She provided photos.
  3. The landlord called the resident on 11 January 2021. It sent her an email summarising their conversation. It said that usually, if it did not paint a void property, it would give incoming tenants vouchers to buy paint, and decorate themselves. It said it would offer her vouchers (although it had decorated). It said it would raise a work order to seal the tiles.
  4. On 26 January 2021 the landlord offered the resident £202 in vouchers. It explained that these were intended for painting, and cleaning items. It explained how it had calculated the amount.
  5. On 26 January 2021 the resident raised a formal complaint to the landlord. She said the tiles and basin were dirty. She said the paint on the walls was peeling.
  6. On 5 February 2021 the landlord issued its stage one complaint response. It acknowledged her feedback about the property’s cleanliness. However, it explained that it would not repaint, and that she was responsible for decorating. It said her basin and tiles were fit for purpose (from having viewed her photos). It said it had raised a work order to seal the tiles, but the resident had asked to postpone it. It reiterated its offer of vouchers. It concluded by explaining how the resident could escalate her complaint if she remained dissatisfied.
  7. The resident escalated her complaint on 5 February 2021. She disputed that the basin and tiles were fit for purpose. She said the vouchers were “redundant if the underlying wall [was] not sorted”.
  8. The landlord called the resident on 18 February 2021. It said it would visit, and investigate the bathroom and walls to assess their condition. It attended on 22 February.
  9. On 3 March 2021 the landlord advised the resident that during its visit it had identified a line of sealant in the bathroom that it would clean. It clarified that the vouchers were also for the preparation, cleaning, and sanding down of the walls.
  10. On 5 March 2021 the resident told the landlord she thought the basin needed replacing as it had “chips in it”.
  11. The landlord issued its stage two complaint response on 30 March 2021. It reiterated what it had explained in earlier correspondence. It said it would not replace the tiles, but would clean the sealant. It reiterated that it had also offered vouchers for cleaning supplies. It said it would not replace the basin, but offered to clean it. It acknowledged that it should have cleaned properly during the void period. It apologised, and offered £50 compensation. It concluded by explaining how the resident could refer her complaint to this Service if she remained dissatisfied.

Assessment and findings

  1. The resident’s tenancy agreement sets out that she is responsible keeping the interior of her home in a good state of decoration, and keeping all internal fixtures and fittings in good order. The landlord’s compensation procedure sets out that it will offer up to £50 compensation when the resident has experienced low level inconvenience. The compensation policy states that it may offer compensation to enable a resident to resolve an issue, rather than carry out the repair itself. 
  2. The resident was dissatisfied with the quality of the landlord’s paint work. The landlord acknowledged her concerns, and offered £202 of vouchers for her to purchase paint items and redecorate. It later clarified that the offer was also intended to supplement the costs of sanding, and preparing the walls as the resident was concerned with their condition. As explained in paragraph 13, the landlord can offer compensation rather than completing work itself. The evidence therefore shows that it went above its obligations by carrying out the decoration (during the void period), and also offering compensation in the form of vouchers. It took reasonable steps, in line with its policy to help the resolve this aspect of her complaint.
  3. The resident was dissatisfied with the condition of her bathroom basin. The landlord inspected it, and acknowledged that it should have cleaned it properly during the void period. It apologised, said it would clean, rather than replace it, and offered £50 compensation for the inconvenience caused. The offer was in line with the landlord’s compensation procedure for causing low level inconvenience. It was also in line with the Ombudsman’s own remedies guidance as there was no clear long term impact from the issue. 
  4. The landlord also explained that following its inspection, it had decided to clean a line of sealant rather than replace her tiles. It reiterated that a proportion of the vouchers were intended for her to purchase cleaning materials. This was not an unreasonable response. The landlord had inspected in order to identify what work was needed, in line with its responsibilities, and offered to make good what it was responsible for.
  5. It is understandable that the resident was frustrated with the condition of her home. Nevertheless, the landlord addressed her concerns, acknowledged its shortcomings, and took steps to resolve them. Its actions, and responses were reasonable, and proportionate to the issues reported.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 55 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

Reasons

  1. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s concerns, and took steps to put things right. It offered compensation, vouchers, and to carry out cleaning work. Its actions were reasonable and proportionate to the issues reported.