Notting Hill Genesis (NHG) (202108397)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202108397

Notting Hill Genesis

3 August 2023

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:
   1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s defective heating system.
   2. The landlord’s handling of allegations made about the resident by a repair operative.
   3. The landlord’s complaints handling.

Background

2. The resident has occupied the property under an assured tenancy since 2015. The landlord employs a heating contractor who are responsible for the maintenance of the heating and hot water system within the property.
3. At the end of May 2021 the heating contractor attended the resident’s property after she reported a fault with the heating and hot water system. They assessed the repair and ordered parts.
4. Two weeks later an operative from the heating contractor attended the resident’s property a second time to complete the repair. At this appointment the operative advised the parts supplied were incorrect and as such the repair could not be completed.
5. The resident contacted the landlord, concerned that the operative had the wrong parts. She asked when the repair would be completed. The landlord confirmed the wrong parts had been supplied and that a new appointment would be scheduled when the correct parts arrived. It also advised that the operative had witnessed a family dispute while at the resident’s home, which made him feel uncomfortable while working there. The landlord asked the resident to try to avoid such situations while operatives were there.
6. On 2 July 2021 the resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord. She denied and disputed the alleged altercation at her home and complained that the landlord had given conflicting accounts for why the work had not been completed: either that the wrong part had been supplied; or the operative had left because of the alleged family dispute. She explained that an operative from the same heating company had made allegations about her previously, which the landlord had investigated and found no evidence for, and she was concerned that the same thing was happening again. She said she did not want the same heating company to attend again, and cancelled an upcoming appointment.
7. The landlord provided its stage one response on 20 July 2021. It explained that the heating contractor had initially told it that its operative had the wrong part, but “then this changed to the engineer having to leave due to what he perceived to be an unpleasant situation to be in… and that’s why he left”. The landlord said the operative no longer worked for the contractor, so it had not been able to get a statement from him, or clarify what had happened. Nonetheless, it acknowledged that the issue had clearly caused the resident distress, and could have been handled better. It apologised for the resident needing to complain, and offered her £50 compensation for the distress caused to her. However, it explained it could not change the heating company, for “logistical reasons”. Instead it offered to have one of its own officers be present at the next appointment with the contractor.
8. The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint on 20 July 2021. The landlord acknowledged the request on 6 September 2021. It offered the resident the option to have her complaint reviewed by an independent manager. The resident asked that it be reviewed by two managers.
9. The landlord provided its stage two response on 15 October 2021. It repeated its explanations about the heating repair and the parts needed, and acknowledged its service had been poor. It said that it would not change the heating company, and provided further reasons why (centred on availability and location). It explained how it dealt with service issues involving contractors, and again offered the resident the option of having one of its officers present at future repairs visit to monitor any incidents. It explained again that it had not been able to interview the operative who made the allegations about the resident, but acknowledged the issue had caused her distress, especially as she has said that something similar had happened previously. The landlord concluded by apologising for the significant delay completing its complaint investigation, and its failure to provide updates. It acknowledged that this would have caused the resident further distress and dissatisfaction. It apologised for each of its failings, and the distress caused by the allegation, and offered £40 for its poor complaints handling.
10. The resident remained dissatisfied, and brought her complaint to the Ombudsman. She wanted the landlord to provide a different heating company for future repairs.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s defective heating system.

11. The landlords heating contractor conducted an initial visit to the residents property, diagnosed the issue and confirmed a second visit would be required once parts had been delivered. During the second visit the contractor confirmed that incorrect parts had been supplied and a third visit would be needed.
12. While it appears that the repairs were not completed, that was because the resident cancelled the next appointment and declined to give further access. In the circumstances, her decision was understandable, but without access the landlord could not complete the repairs. The repair status is not apparent from the evidence, as the resident did not raise specific concerns about it with the landlord or this Service. Having the wrong parts was clearly an error, and resulted in a wasted appointment. The landlord acknowledged its error and the inconvenience it had caused. It apologised, explained how it would endeavour to learn from the complaint, and offered £50 compensation for the frustration caused.
13. The compensation offered was in line with the landlord’s compensation policy where service standards had not been met, but the impact was comparatively limited, such as here. These were appropriate and relevant remedies, proportionate to the scale and time frame of the landlord’s mistake with the wrong parts.

The landlord’s handling of allegations made about the resident by a repair operative.

14. The Ombudsman is not able to determine whether the contractor’s allegations were true or not. Instead, it is this Service’s role to decide whether the landlord adequately investigated and responded to the resident’s complaint about the matter, and took proportionate action based on the information available to it.
15. In both its stage one and stage two complaint responses the landlord confirmed the operative no longer worked for the contractor and, as such, it could not say for certain what did or did not happen. Nonetheless, it acknowledged the situation could have been handled better and the distress it had caused the resident. It offered £50 compensation because of it. In the absence of independent witnesses or supporting evidence a landlord is sometimes constrained in how far it can investigate an allegation of this nature. In this case, there does not appear to be any such evidence or witnesses, and therefore the landlord’s conclusions were reasonable. It was also reasonable for the landlord to acknowledge that, whether the allegation was true or not, the matter had caused distress to the resident. It provided appropriate remedies proportionate to the circumstances of the complaint.
16. The resident’s request that the landlord provide a different heating company was understandable in the circumstances of the disputed allegation, and the history of an unfounded allegation by the same company the previous year (apparently by a different operative). The landlord considered her request and acknowledged why she was seeking the change, but explained why it could not accommodate it. As an alternative it offered to have one of its own officers attend future repair appointments. Decisions about how repair issues are resolved, and by whom, are the landlord’s to make. Changing a specific operative, in the relevant circumstances, would not be an unreasonable request which a landlord should usually agree to when necessary. Changing the whole contractor company would usually be a disproportionate step, and not one a landlord would generally be able to take – unless it already had in place a pool of companies on which to draw and substitute where needed. The landlord explained why it could not make the change, and also explained the systems it had in place to address any concerns about a contractor’s service. It’s decision, explanations and alternative solution were appropriate and pragmatic in this particular case.
17. Following the landlord’s final complaint response the resident pointed out to it that it had previously offered to change contractor companies after the first allegation. She asked why it could not do that now. In subsequent correspondence the landlord explained the nature of its contracts with the heating company to provide services to the whole block of flats, which could not be amended to exclude one property. It did not specifically address why the previously offered option was no longer available, but its responses to the resident’s request at each stage, while evolving in specifics, were consistent in that there was no option to make such a change now.

The landlord’s complaints handling

18. The landlord’s complaints and compliments policy states that all stage two complaints must be responded to within 20 working days. Any increase in that timescale must be due to exceptional circumstances and in agreement with the resident.
19. The landlord issued its stage two response 62 working days following the residents request for escalation. The landlord, twice, provided the resident with new target dates for a response, each of these were missed without explanation. The resident contacted the landlord repeatedly for updates, in some of these occasions there is no evidence of the landlord responding.
20. In its stage two response the landlord acknowledged its response was not sent within an appropriate timeframe, and that it had not updated the resident. It recognised the impact that had on her, apologised, and offered £40 compensation. It explained what steps it would take to ensure better communication about complaints in the future.
21. In its stage two complaint response the landlord stated “we receive regular training and support in house to help avoid mishandling of complaints and delays”. It did not explain how the delays occurred in spite of the training its staff had received, or what it would do differently to ensure it met its response time frames. It did explain it would monitor future complaints closely to ensure residents are updated on any delays, but did not explain how this would be embedded in its processes – something needed to ensure consistency and compliance.
22. The landlord’s complaints and compliments policy states “your complaint will also be reviewed by at least one independent manager”. In this case the resident asked for two managers to review her case, which the landlord agreed to, and which contributed significantly to the large delay because of staff availability. On the face of it, the process as published therefore appears to leave itself open to potential delay, and be incompatible with the landlord meeting its 20 day target.
23. Overall, while the landlord acknowledged and apologised for its complaint delays, its explanations about how it would improve its service are unclear and do not provide the necessary reassurance that it will be able to do so. Additionally, the compensation it offered was not proportionate to the scale of the delay or its poor communication with the resident during the process.

Determination

24. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the resident prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the complaints about:
    1. Its handling of the resident’s defective heating system.
    2. Its handling of allegations made about the resident by a repair operative.
25. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

26. Within four weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must pay the resident £140 in recognition of its complaints handling failures. This is inclusive of the £40 already offered.
27. Within six weeks, the landlord must review its complaint handling processes in relation to this complaint. It should prepare an action plan setting out how it will ensure it meets its published time frame targets, provides updates to complainants, and embeds its improvements into its policies, procedures, and training.
28. Evidence of compliance with these orders must be provided to this Service by their respective deadlines.

Recommendations

29. The landlord may wish to give serious consideration to how it can try to rebuild the relationship between its contractor and the resident (such as through mediation), given that it intends to continue using the same company, and the resident will have future repair needs.