Notting Hill Genesis (NHG) (202109486)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202109486

Notting Hill Genesis (NHG)

30 November 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

The complaint concerns the landlord’s handling of:
1. Repairs to the resident’s property’s sash windows.
2. Damp and mould in the bathroom.
3. The resident’s concerns about the heating control electrical cable.
4. The resident’s complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a secured tenant and her tenancy commenced in the 1970s.
The property is a mid-terraced three-bedroom house.
The landlord has vulnerabilities of degenerative spine mobility as well as arthritis recorded for the resident.
The resident’s son has acted on her behalf in the complaint with both the landlord and this Service as he has explained his mother is not computer literate. Both he and his mother will be referred to as the resident in this report.
The landlord’s complaints policy comprises two stages. At stage one the complaint will be acknowledged within two working days and the landlord will aim to provide a formal written response within 10 working days. If the landlord is unable to meet this timescale it will contact the resident and agree a new timescale with them.
If the resident remains unhappy with the landlord’s outcome at stage one they can escalate the complaint to stage two. The complaint will be reviewed by someone who was not involved in the original decision who will contact the resident to discuss the complaint and the resolution being sought within two working days. The landlord will provide a written response within 20 working days. If this timescale needs to be changed the landlord will contact the resident and agree a new timescale.
The landlord’s compensation and goodwill gesture policy explains that it will compensate residents in the event it has failed to meet the standards of its service. The policy sets out that the landlord will compensate residents fairly where they have suffered distress and inconvenience, or where they have experienced financial hardship due to a service failure. In addition the landlord will consider goodwill gestures to residents, where it has been unable to provide a service in line with its policies and procedures.
The compensation policy explains that goodwill gestures can include “a stand-alone item such as flowers, chocolates or vouchers” and that these would be limited to a maximum value of £50. Compensation for distress and inconvenience following a service failure would be for amounts of up to £250, based on the level of impact, unless there were exceptional circumstances or multiple failures in which a higher level of compensation could be awarded.
The landlord’s compensation policy sets out that in the event of a missed appointment missed by its contractor it would compensate the resident £30.

Summary of Events

An electrical installation certification was completed for the property on 10 May 2021 following the completion of kitchen wiring. This had followed the installation of a new kitchen by the local authority as an adaptation.
The landlord’s internal communication on 13 July 2021 noted that flooding had affected a number of homes the previous day which had included the resident’s property. The notes detailed that all the properties had been offered an environmental clean. The landlord had also enquired with residents about which items had been damaged. The landlord noted that, whilst most residents wished to remain in their properties, those staying in hotels or with friends and family would be entitled to a daily payment from it.
The landlord’s internal communication noted that an inspection would be carried out the following day (14 July 2021). It also noted the resident did not wish to be decanted and that she would be staying with friends and family. The contemporaneous notes indicated that the resident had recently had a new kitchen fitted and that sewage water had affected all plinths as well as reaching the area under the boiler. The landlord had noted that the downstairs windows could not be opened and as a result this would lead to damp remaining in the property.
The resident emailed the landlord on 19 July 2021. He explained that serious flooding had occurred to the area on 12 July 2021. This had led to untreated sewage flooding into the garden, the kitchen and the downstairs toilet and lobby area of the property. He added that his mother had been informed that she would be prioritised for a deep clean. However despite this she had received no visit from either the landlord or the water supply company. Instead she had been “fobbed off with excuse after excuse and appointments which have not been kept with no notice or update of cancellation.” He added that he understood the landlord was now not answering phone calls.
The resident added in his email of 19 July 2021 that when the surveyor had finally attended the property he had commented it was the worst affected property and there was an “overpowering foul stench” to which the hot weather had also contributed. He listed a number of biohazards which his mother had been exposed to because of the issue not having been resolved to date (which had been a week). The resident added he understood the neighbouring properties either side of his mother’s had already been dealt with even though they had been less affected than his mother’s property. The resident explained he had already spoken to the Housing Ombudsman Service about the issue and was looking at instructing solicitors in relation to suing the landlord “for neglect and their failure to comply with the statutory requirements of the Landlord and Tenancy Act 1985” as well as whether the property was in a fit and habitable condition.
The landlord confirmed in internal communication on 21 July 2021 that it had sent the resident £40 of Sainsbury’s vouchers to cover two days of food support. It added that it would be planning to allow cash instead of vouchers to be sent direct to the bank accounts of those properties which had been affected by the flood.
The landlord also arranged on 21 July 2021 for pest control to visit the property. This pest controller visited the property on 22 July 2021.
The resident emailed the landlord on 29 July 2021. This had followed on from a visit by the landlord to the property, together with a surveyor, when he had not been present at the property. The resident, who is an electrical qualified supervisor with 15 years of teaching and training experience, had questioned the surveyor’s comments made to his mother in terms of the electrical cable installed underneath the kitchen base units. He added he had previously raised the issue with the landlord as it did not comply with the wiring regulations. Neither party has provided any evidence of this issue having been raised with the landlord at an earlier time.
The resident explained that the surveyor had considered there was no issue with the installation of the cable and that when his mother had pointed out his comments about it and listed his experience, the surveyor had commented that the issue with the installation was “a matter of opinion.” The resident disagreed with this interpretation and said the issue was whether the work complied with the required British Standard for electrical installation work. He set out the exact nature of the non-compliance and departures from the required British Standard including the references under the wiring regulations handbook. The resident asked that the cable was protected adequately within the next five days otherwise he would inform the National Inspection Council of Electrical Installation Contractors (NICEIC), the Electrical Safety Council and the Health and Safety Executive over the potentially dangerous situation which was present. He added that the electrical contractor who had inspected the cable may have committed fraud by incorrectly ticking a box to say the cable had complied with the appropriate British Standards.
The landlord’s internal communication on 30 July 2021 noted that in terms of the flooding support payments it did not hold all the bank details of those affected by the flooding. This included the resident. The communication also noted that a dehumidifier would be required and that it would pay for the electricity for the humidifier. The resident provided her banking details to the landlord on this date.
The resident emailed the landlord on 3 August 2021. He explained that the individual who he had been communicating with on the matter was on annual leave. However he wished to make the landlord aware that a contractor had visited the property the previous day, however the electrician who had attended had seemed ill informed of the requirements and so the visit had been wasted (and this had not been the first time). The resident added this was “another example of the shocking ignorance displayed” by the landlord’s sub-contractors. The resident asked for a copy of the landlord’s complaints procedure as well as a copy of the Electrical Installation Certificate (EIC) when the kitchen had been installed.
The landlord emailed the resident on 4 August 2021. It confirmed that it would review the job report from the electrician but that this could take some time. It added that the kitchen had been fitted by the local authority as part of a kitchen upgrade and not it, so it would have expected the electrical test and boxing of cables to have been completed by the local authority. It added it had scheduled an inspection to be carried out. It also confirmed that it had an existing complaint open which had been made by the resident’s member of parliament and it provided the resident with a complaints leaflet.
The resident replied to the landlord on 4 August 2021. He explained he wanted to review the electrician report once it had been received. He added that he also wanted a copy of the EIC, as if the local authority had fitted the kitchen as instructed by the landlord, then the EIC and schedule of inspection and of test results should have been issued to the landlord. He requested these also be sent to him.
The resident also sent the landlord an email on 5 August 2021 in terms of the outstanding issues. In this email he enclosed pictures of the unsupported cable which he stated showed poor quality installation as there was no sheathing and it was lying loose on the ground. He also explained the cable had been fitted on the wall with only one screw which again was not in keeping with the British Standards and that the cable had been touching the water pipe which was another contravention. The resident explained that he had spoken to one of the landlord’s customer service representatives on 3 August 2023 and been told he would get a call within 24 hours which had not materialised. He once again requested a copy of the EIC and stated that he was escalating the matter to the appropriate authorities.
The resident sent a further email to the landlord on 5 August 2021. He explained that his mother was not setting up an online account as she was computer illiterate and therefore requested the landlord did not send her text messages with links on to how to create her account. Instead he wanted alternative means of communication especially in relation to the progress of the outstanding work.
The resident sent a letter of complaint to the landlord which was dated 5 August 2021. He referred to the outstanding unresolved issues on which he requested action to be undertaken as soon as possible. In terms of the issues these were:
1. The sash windows both in the upstairs and downstairs of the property which could not be opened.
2. The installation and condition of an electrical cable in the kitchen which had been left in in a dangerous condition and was not compliant with the relevant building standards.
3. The rainwater gully which was in a poor state of repair allowing water ingress into the bathroom which was leading to damp and mould.
The resident emailed the landlord on 17 August 2021. He explained he had posted a letter of complaint to the landlord on 7 August 2021 and he had received no acknowledgment to it. He attached a further copy of the letter of complaint.
The landlord and the resident exchanged a series of emails on 18 August 2021 over the issue of the EIC certificate and the electrical test which the landlord was scheduling. The resident asked for contact details of the contractor which the landlord had informed him would be carrying out the test. This was as he had concerns over the contractor’s previous work at the property and so he did not want them to carry out any further work. The landlord confirmed that the kitchen had not been installed by it but rather by the local authority. As a result it stated the contractor it had scheduled for the electrical test would not have been involved in the carrying out of the EIC unless the local authority also used this contractor which it considered was unlikely.
The resident confirmed on 18 August 2021 that given what the landlord had informed him he wanted the EIC located and that the landlord should already have received it once the kitchen had been installed. He asked when the inspection would be carried out by the landlord’s electrical contractor.
The electrical installation condition report (EICR) was carried out by the landlord’s contractor on 20 August 2021. This report noted the condition of the installation to be “satisfactory.”
The resident completed a complaint form on 23 August 2021. The resident noted in terms of when they had first reported the issue that this had been in December 2020. The resident did not expand on what specific issue had initially been reported by them at that time. He added he had made a complaint on 5 August 2021. In terms of how the issue had affected them the resident explained that they had been inconvenienced following the flooding of the kitchen by raw sewage. He added that they had been forced to move possessions, some of which had been damaged and that they had been unable to open windows to allow ventilation. They also added that an electrical cable had been left in a dangerous condition. Despite notifying the landlord on several occasions both verbally and in writing the landlord had not addressed the matter.
The resident emailed the landlord on 24 August 2021 to explain that an electrician had visited to carry out remedial work on the cable. However he had not addressed the exposed insulation. This had been despite the resident having spoken to the electrician whilst he was on site to explain the work which needed to be carried out. The resident explained that the electrical cable needed to be addressed and he reiterated his request for a copy of the EIC and EICR reports. The resident sent a chaser email to the landlord on 1 September 2021 to explain he had yet to receive the certificates. He added he would wait a further day before referring the matter to the Housing Ombudsman Service.
The resident also emailed the landlord on 1 September 2021 to inform it that his mother had tried to contact the landlord on two occasions by phone. This had been on 20 August 2021 when she had a requested a call back which had not materialised and again on 27 August 2021 when she was informed a message would be passed on to the person she was trying to contact.
The landlord emailed the resident on 1 September 2021. The representative apologised as he had been away on a family emergency since 20 August 2021. He explained he had not been made aware of the resident’s phone call on 27 August 2021 due to an “oversight”.
The resident emailed the landlord on 2 September 2021. Whilst he accepted the representative had been away he expressed concern that the representative’s caseload had not been picked up by a colleague in the interim.
The landlord issued its stage one complaint response on 2 September 2021. It made an offer of £175 based on £75 for the failure to respond to the stage one complaint in line with its policy and £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the issues. In terms of the issues raised by the resident it stated:
1. It had visited the property in July 2021 (although it did not specify on what date). In terms of the sash windows, it had been made aware at this time that the windows downstairs had been painted shut and the ones upstairs were difficult to open. A repair had been raised on 26 July 2021 and its contractors had attended the property to resolve the matter on 5 August 2021.
2. The surveyor who had visited the property with the landlord in July 2021 (again no specific date was provided) had noted the guttering was misaligned and that it needed a further inspection. A repair had been raised on 1 August 2021 for the gully. Upon inspection of the roof the operative had identified missing brackets and these had been fitted and a water check undertaken to ensure no further leaks were occurring from that point.
3. In relation to the electrical cable and installation it enclosed the EIC certificate carried out following the kitchen installation on 10 May 2021. It had also enclosed a copy of the EICR that it had carried out on 20 August 2021.
The resident’s representative emailed the landlord on 4 September 2021. He explained they did not want to accept the landlord’s offer of compensation. In terms of the issues:
1. They accepted the downstairs sash windows which had been painted shut had now been released. However the resident explained that the sash windows were heavy to open and they closed under their own weight. This issue needed to be rectified.
2. The rainwater gully had been addressed in terms of the repair. However the issue of damp and mould reappearing on bathroom ceiling had not been addressed. The resident explained that his mother had asthma.
3. Whilst the resident noted that an EIC had been carried out for the “poorly installed cable” he had concerns about it and the person who had carried out the check. Having inspected the EIC document he had a number of issues which he explained he would report to the NICEIC. The resident also had concerns about the EICR report. Therefore he wished to escalate the matter to stage two of the landlord’s complaints procedure.
The resident raised a complaint with the NICEIC about the work carried out when the kitchen had been upgraded and the EIC report completed. In addition he also raised a complaint with the same body about the EICR carried out by the landlord’s electrical contractor. The resident copied in the landlord to his emails to the NICEIC.
The resident emailed the landlord on 16 September 2021 to explain he had received no response to his email of 4 September 2021. He added he expected to receive the stage 2 response by 24 September 2021. The resident sent a further email later the same day concerning a further issue. He explained a leak had been reported on 4 September 2021 from the bathroom floor to the kitchen light. Whilst an electrician had attended to make the cables safe, it had taken the resident a number of calls for the landlord to address the leak. The resident added that mastic had been needed on the waste trap of the shower. Whilst the landlord’s operative had applied mastic, this had been to everywhere else apart from the waste trap. He enclosed photos to show this. As a result he wished to have both the issue resolved and for the landlord to investigate having quality controls in place.
The landlord replied on 17 September 2021. It confirmed it would respond with a formal written response within 20 working days. It added that it would respond by 1 October 2021.
The landlord’s internal correspondence on 20 September 2021 “noted that the kitchen adaptations had been postponed due to the flood. The landlord wanted the contractor who was dealing with replacing the plinths as part of the flood works to purchase the correct plinths. The landlord also wanted the wet room repairs to be done.
The resident emailed the landlord on 6 October 2021 to explain that they had not received the landlord’s stage two response by the deadline it had provided to them of 1 October 2021. He also explained he had not heard back from it over the email he had sent on 16 September 2021 about the mastic.
The landlord emailed the resident on 8 October 2021. It apologised for the delay. It explained that it wanted a clear plan of action. It stated it would be recalling the contractor for the wet room to rectify the issues. The landlord also agreed to pay the quotes it had received from the resident for the flooring in the kitchen and the carpet in the hallway. It added it would be cleaning other carpets and that once the flooding works had been done it would replace the kitchen plinths. It would then tackle other issues. The landlord noted the deadline for the stage two response had been exceeded as it had been awaiting for an independent reviewer to provide feedback. It added it would provide compensation for the fact it had exceeded the timescales for its response.
The resident emailed the landlord on 8 October 2021. He noted the landlord’s comments concerning the action it planned but explained the delays in communication had been poor. He added the issues had remained unresolved since July. The resident acknowledged the landlord’s contractor would return and remove the mastic and he noted the plans for the floor and that the landlord would be paying them to cover the flooring as per the quote the resident had sent the landlord. He did question why the landlord required the flooring to be completed before it addressed the other issues.
The landlord emailed this Service on 15 November 2021, following it having received contact from the Housing Ombudsman. It acknowledged the delay in providing the stage two response and explained it would bring the matter to the attention of the housing operation manager so that an update could be provided.
The landlord emailed the resident on 24 November 2021. It asked if he was free the following week, on 30 November 2021, as it wanted to arrange an independent electrical contractor to assess the section of the cable under the base units. It stated it hoped the resident could attend as this would be his opportunity to highlight any other electrical issues. It added if he was not free it would look at alternative days.
The resident and the landlord exchanged emails between 25 November 2021 and 6 December 2021 concerning the visit of the independent contractor. The resident explained as he worked he could not attend during the day so asked if the contractor could attend during evenings or on weekends. The landlord explained after checking with the contractor that this was not possible. It proposed as an alternative that the contractor could call the resident when they were on site. This was rejected by the resident and he asked on 6 December 2021 if the contractor could attend on 9 December 2021 when he would be able to be at the property.
This Service emailed the landlord on 6 December 2021 to state that the resident had yet to receive the stage two response.
The landlord emailed the resident on 7 December 2021 to explain that it had checked with the contractor and whilst he was unavailable on 9 December 2021 he could either attend on 8 or 15 December 2021. It accepted that the first of these dates was extremely short notice. The resident however confirmed he could make the appointment on 8 December 2021 so long as the contractor could attend towards the end of the day between 4.30 and 5 pm.
The landlord issued the stage two letter on 13 December 2021. It explained it had learned lessons following on from the resident’s complaint and that it would ensure it did not repeat these going forward. It stated it was reviewing the complaints procedure and policy and hoped to complete these by spring 2022. In reference to the resident’s specific complaints it stated:
1. There had been delays with escalation at both stage one and stage two as well as issuing the stage two response. The landlord had received the original complaint on 17 August 2021 and it had responded on 2 September 2021. This was two days outside of its response timescales. The resident had then escalated the complaint on 4 September 2021 and the response deadline should have been by 1 October 2021. Instead it had only issued the stage two response on 13 December 2021. The landlord made a total offer of £250 for this which comprised £75 each for service failure at both stage one and two and £100 for the late response to the complaint at stage two.
2. There had also been a lack of response at times to the resident’s queries as well as poor communication from it. This had included internal communication. It proposed an amount of £125 in relation to its failure to follow its own service standards.
3. In terms of the sash windows the repair for this had been raised on 26 July 2021 and it had been completed by the contractor on 5 August 2021. It noted the resident had not been happy with how the windows opened and closed and so it had re-raised this issue with a different contractor. This was scheduled for 6 January 2022. The landlord accepted that, as the resident had raised concerns shortly after the job had been completed, it should have followed up on the matter at that time. It apologised for this and offered £125 for its failing.
4. In relation to the damp and mould in the bathroom, its technicians had carried out a roof inspection on 20 August 2021. This determined the leakage from the roof was due to missing brackets which had misaligned the guttering. A new bracket had been fitted and the guttering had since been realigned. A check had been made to determine that there were no leaks and that the water flowed smoothly. The landlord noted the resident’s complaint did not centre on the roof and rain gulley, but rather on the re-emerging damp and mould on the bathroom ceiling. It had therefore raised this as a new job with a different contractor. It offered £125 in relation to the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.
5. In terms of the electrical cable it had carried out a new electrical report following the stage one response. This took place on 20 August 2021. Following the resident’s complaint it had instructed a different electrical contractor to attend the property. It acknowledged that the appointment at 5pm on 8 December 2021 did not go ahead. It stated its contractor had attended and the person who answered the door had no knowledge of the appointment. It had therefore requested a new date for the contractor to re-attend. It offered £250 compensation in terms of the distress and inconvenience caused.
The resident replied to the landlord on 15 December 2021. He noted the total offer of £875 proposed by the landlord. He asked the landlord to ensure that the contractors carried identification going forwards. The following day the resident confirmed acceptance of the landlord’s offer and apology. He stated that, whilst appointments for the sash windows and bathroom ceiling had been made, the appointment for the electrical contractor had still not been arranged.
The landlord confirmed to the resident on 16 December 2021 that it would raise the payment of compensation. It added that the electrical contractor could visit on that day. If this was not acceptable then it would not take place until the new year.
The resident emailed the landlord on 6 January 2022 to enquire about the compensation amount which had been agreed. He also wanted to confirm the “availability of the electrical contractor regarding bringing the heating control circuit cable into compliance”. He added the contractor had attended the property unannounced on 5 January 2022 which was poor communication on the landlord’s part. He stated he wished to ensure this did not happen again. The resident chased up the appointment on 27 January 2022.
The resident emailed the landlord on 21 February 2022. He enclosed pictures of the pipe boxing to the wall which had been removed and needed “to be secured and made good.” He explained that he had met the electrical inspector on 15 February 2022 at the property and was surprised to be informed that the inspector was not there to carry out any remedial work but to “give a 2nd opinion”. He stated this was another example of inefficiency by the landlord. The resident explained the inspector had agreed with him regarding the electrical cable which had exposed insulation and was close to the service pipe. As a result he asked the landlord when the work would be carried out.
The landlord emailed the resident on 27 February 2022. It apologised for the delay in replaying to the resident. It explained a job had been raised for 23 February 2022 to resolve the pipe boxing however it was not convenient for the resident. It explained it had emailed the repairs team to sort out a new appointment. The landlord added the appointment with the electrical inspector had been to check issues raised and not a remedial appointment. The aim had been to provide an independent view of works by the original contractor. It stated it would be carrying out the remedial work and asked the resident for his daytime availability.
The resident replied to the landlord to state that his mother was available on 1 March 2023 or 4 March 2023 for the electrical contractor to attend.
The resident emailed this Service on 23 May 2022 asking the Housing Ombudsman to proceed with the complaint as there had been no progress on some of the outstanding work. The resident did not specify exactly what work remained outstanding at that time.
The landlord has confirmed that it drew up a schedule of works as of 5 September 2022 and following this it received a quote for the repairs from its contractor. This related to the sash windows, the pipe boxing, and the electrical cable as well as other issues which did not form part of the resident’s complaint.
A new EICR certificate was issued on 27 October 2022 which stated under the purpose of the report that it was a “safety compliance check to assess the overall condition of the electrical installation of the property”. The overall assessment had been noted as being “satisfactory.”

Assessment and findings

Scope of Investigation

The resident, since completing the landlord’s internal complaints process, has raised further issues. These include there being some mould on the bathroom window, the new sashes fitted to all the windows not being fit for purpose and the front door of the property did not fit properly. This meant even with the heating on the property was cold. The resident added the only way to close the front door was by means of using the key and that sometimes they had had problems in opening the door from the outside to enter the property. These matters, with the exclusion of the sash window issue, will not be addressed as part of this investigation, as the Ombudsman cannot consider complaints which have not yet exhausted the landlord’s complaint procedure or been raised with it in the first instance. The Ombudsman has however made a recommendation in relation to these issues which is set out at the end of this report.

The landlord’s handling of the repairs to the sash windows.

Upon being alerted to the flooding at the property on 13 July 2021 the landlord planned to carry out an inspection of the property the following day. This was a reasonable approach for it to take to gauge the extent of the flooding and damage to the properties. The landlord’s contemporaneous notes of 13 July 2021 show it was aware that the sash windows in the property could not be opened and the lack of ventilation meant that the dampness and smell from the raw sewage remained in the property. As the landlord had not inspected the property at this time, this information on the condition of the sash windows would have come direct from the resident.
The landlord was aware that the resident had vulnerabilities which included asthma and arthritis and as a result it had informed her that it would prioritise the environmental clean. She was entitled to believe as it had informed her that it had prioritised her, this would also extend to dealing with the repairs in a prompt manner.
The landlord’s repairs logs show that the sash windows were not recorded by it until 26 July 2021, which was a full two weeks after the flooding had taken place. The resident had informed the landlord a week after the flooding that neither it nor the water supply company had attended the property despite saying they would be attending. The landlord has not provided any explanation as to why it had not visited the property by this time. In terms of whether the water supply company had visited, this will not be considered as part of this investigation as we only look at the landlord. By delaying the initial inspection and not recording the repair required to the sash windows, which would allow ventilation to the property, the landlord contributed to leaving the damp smell in the property for a prolonged period. This would have caused the resident a further degree of distress and inconvenience at a time when the flooding which had damaged her possessions had already caused her distress.
The landlord’s stage one response noted that only the downstairs windows had been painted shut. The resident accepted the upstairs ones had not been painted shut. However they had been difficult to open as they were heavy. Given the physical limitations of the resident, it should have been apparent to the landlord that it needed to consider whether it could ease the opening of the windows to ensure that they did not close under their own weight. As well as being required for ventilation purposes this would have also been a safety requirement in the event of a fire at the property.
The landlord has accepted that following the stage one response when it had stated the window repairs had been completed, it should have responded in a much prompter manner to the resident’s concerns about the matter. Whilst the landlord had made an offer of compensation of £125 for failing to do this, the offer itself was not appropriate. This was because the landlord’s offer was based on the work being completed shortly after the stage two response. The landlord’s records show that the work to the windows had not been completed until the last quarter of 2022, more than nine months after the stage two response was issued. There is no evidence that the reason for the delay had been down to the resident.
Given the further delay of several months, an increased offer of compensation for the sash window repairs is appropriate. The resident has informed this Service that the work to the windows was not fit for purpose. Whilst this had occurred after the end of the landlord’s internal complaints process, as it concerned the work that the landlord had stated it would be doing in the stage two response, it should now reassess the work and consider whether it needs to carry out any further work on the windows.

The landlord’s handling of damp and mould in the bathroom.

The resident has accepted that the landlord had addressed the issue of the leak into the bathroom ceiling from the roof by means of re-attaching the missing bracket to the rainwater gully and the guttering in early August 2021, just after he had made his complaint. The landlord’s operative had also aligned the gutter correctly and tested it to ensure there were no more leaks coming from the roof. In addition the landlord’s operative had cleaned the debris from the gutter. This was as the debris may have caused the ingress of water from the roof.
Whilst the landlord’s operative had addressed whether there was any water ingress into the property following the fixation of the bracket, there was no indication that it had addressed the damp and mould in the bathroom via the bathroom ceiling. The landlord’s repair logs show that it had suggested a replacement of the extractor fan with a new one however the repair had not been recorded by it until 26 July 2021 and it had not been completed until 10 August 2021. The repair logs do not show any record of other work being carried out in the bathroom until 26 September 2021 following the resident’s escalation to stage two of the complaints procedure. Whilst the repair logs show a mould wash had been suggested by the landlord and a repair was logged on 1 August 2021 this related to the front wall and not to the bathroom.
Although the resident had raised the issue of the damp and mould reappearing from the same place in the bathroom ceiling prior to the landlord’s stage one response it did not address the matter in its complaint response. This was despite it having noted this to be part of the resident’s complaint. This was not acceptable as it gave the resident the impression that, as it had resolved the external leak via the bracket on the gutter, the bathroom ceiling mould should clear itself up. There was no indication from the landlord in the stage one response that it would attend to the property to inspect the damp and mould in the bathroom. This would have caused the resident a significant degree of distress and inconvenience especially as she had made the landlord aware that she was asthmatic and had breathing difficulties and the damp and mould would have been a health concern.
Whilst the landlord did not address the bathroom damp and mould following the resident’s initial complaint, it did look at the matter prior to issuing the stage two response. The landlord’s stage two response stated it would raise the work with a different contractor to the one who had previously attended. The landlord’s repair logs show that it had closed the repair down on 10 January 2022. The resident in his communication after this point did not refer to the issue again so this suggests the matter had been resolved at that time. Although the landlord made the resident an offer of £125 for the inconvenience experienced at stage two this was not reasonable given the vulnerabilities and health concerns of the resident. The damp and mould in the bathroom was not addressed until five months after the matter had been raised by the resident. As the bathroom was the resident’s means of showering and washing, she had no alternative but to continue to use it whilst the damp and mould had remained.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the heating control electrical cable.

The landlord has explained that the responsibility for the heating control electrical cable rested with the local authority who had fitted the kitchen as an adaptation in early 2021. The local authority had carried out an EIC following the installation which had concluded the installation was satisfactory. A copy of the EIC had been passed on to the landlord. However, irrespective of whether the cable had been installed correctly or not, the landlord had a responsibility to address the issue once the resident had brought the matter to its attention.
The resident has stated he had made the landlord aware of the matter when it had visited the property following the flooding. As someone who worked as an electrical supervisor with a number of years of experience, the resident was in a better position than the average person to be aware of the electrical standards and the approved codes of practice which were in place. Having seen the condition and positioning of the cable, he requested a copy of the EIC certificate which had been completed following the installation of the kitchen.
The landlord did take on board the resident’s concerns and it planned for an EICR to be carried out by its contractor. This was an appropriate step for it to take, given the specific nature of the concerns raised by the resident. The EICR was carried out on 20 August 2021, just over two weeks after the resident had first raised his complaint to the landlord over the matter. This was a reasonable response from the landlord.
The landlord has stated that the EICR report which was carried out at that time had deemed the condition of the installation to be “satisfactory.” Based on this the landlord was entitled to consider the electrical cable installation did not pose any risk or that it was not in keeping with the relevant electrical wiring regulations. The EICR had noted one single observation and recommendation however this was an improvement and not something which was an indication of danger being present or potentially dangerous.
The resident raised further concerns with the competence of the individual completing the EICR once he had been provided with it on 2 September 2021. He cited his specific concerns with reference to specific British Standards and in addition to raising the concerns with the landlord on 4 September 2021 also raised them with the appropriate bodies. This should have flagged to the landlord that it might need to investigate the matter again or get a second opinion by someone who had not yet attended the property to look at the cable and the installation. The landlord’s notes show that it did not do anything until 24 November 2021, over two and a half months later. At that time it attempted to try and book an appointment at a time when the resident would also be present so he could provide his observations and comments to the landlord’s operative who was there to inspect the electrical installation. However due to there not being an adequate time when both the operative and resident could attend, this matter had not been scheduled at the time of the landlord’s stage two response.
Although the landlord made an offer of redress of £250 for the distress and inconvenience suffered by the resident by the delay in inspecting the electrical installation, this offer was inadequate. The offer was on the basis that the electrical inspection would take place promptly. Following this, if any remedial work was required, this too would be completed in a prompt manner. However the offer failed to recognise the extent of the landlord’s failings and the resulting impact on the resident. The landlord’s contemporaneous records show that the landlord’s electrical operative did not attend the property until the middle of February 2022, two months after the stage two response. The remedial work on the electrical installation, which followed on from the electrical inspection did not occur until September 2022, which was over a year from the point the resident had escalated the complaint. This extended timescale would have increased the degree of distress and inconvenience suffered by the resident.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

The resident stated he had raised his initial complaint with the landlord on 7 August 2021 and that he had posted the complaint letter to it. This had followed on a series of conversations including by email on the landlord’s actions following the flooding which occurred in July 2021. The resident had then completed a complaint form for the landlord on 23 August 2021. The landlord’s complaints policy sets out that a complaint is defined as “an expression of dissatisfaction, however made.” Therefore the resident did not need to complete a physical complaint form for the complaint to have been registered by the landlord. The landlord stated it had received the complaint on 17 August 2021. It added that it had not received the first complaint letter which the resident says he had posted. There is no evidence to show the complaint letter sent on 7 August 2021 was received by the landlord. Given this it was entitled to use the date it had received the resident’s complaint by email; this being 17 August 2021 as the point at which the complaint had been made.
The landlord acknowledged that it had not responded to the stage one complaint in accordance with its complaints policy. Instead it had provided the stage one response two days outside of the policy timescales of 10 working days. It had made an offer of compensation of £75 because of service failure for this matter. Following the escalation to stage two the landlord once again accepted that it had not responded in accordance with the complaints policy (within 20 working days). It explained that this timescale had been exceeded by in 52 working days. Once again it had made an offer in relation to service failure of £75 for failing to respond within 20 working days and added a further £225 for the inconvenience and its failure to follow service standards.
The landlord’s award of compensation for both the delay in escalation as well as its failure to follow service standards was in keeping with a medium impact in terms of its compensation policy. This was the appropriate level given the circumstances. As a result the compensation offered by the landlord was, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, appropriate.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the repairs to the sash windows.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the damp and mould in the bathroom.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the heating control electrical cable.
In accordance with paragraph 53 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress offered in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Reasons

The landlord failed to action the resident’s concerns about the sash windows which had been difficult to open and to keep open under their own weight in a prompt manner. Given the resident’s vulnerabilities she would have struggled with keeping the windows open. Whilst the landlord did eventually consider a repair to the sash windows, this was nine months after the resident had completed the landlord’s internal complaints process. The landlord has recognised at stage two of its complaints process that the service provided by it had fallen short and, whilst it made an offer of compensation, this was not sufficient for the distress and inconvenience which was caused to the resident.
Whilst the landlord had addressed the external repair (of the guttering) which it considered had led to the ingress of water to the bathroom, it failed to deal with the internal damp and mould to the ceiling for an extended period. It had noted this to be part of the resident’s initial complaint but it had not addressed the matter within its stage one response. The landlord has recognised at stage two of its complaints process that the service provided by it had fallen short and, whilst it made an offer of compensation, this was not sufficient for the distress and inconvenience which it had put the resident through.
The landlord failed to acknowledge the resident’s concerns, based on his area of expertise, about the electrical kitchen cable. Whilst it did at stage two of the complaints process look at getting a second opinion on the installation, this process was delayed for two months after the end of the landlord’s internal complaints process. Following confirmation of concerns with the electrical installation by the landlord’s electrical contractor, it did not rectify the matter and provide an updated EICR until October 2022, some ten months after the stage two response had been provided. Given this the landlord should have reviewed its offer once the updated EICR was done.
There were failures in the landlord’s complaints handling both at stage one and especially at stage two. However it made a reasonable offer of redress in line with its service standards and its complaints and compensation policy.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within the next four weeks the Ombudsman orders the landlord to:
1. Arrange for a member of the landlord’s staff to apologise to the resident for the failures identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident a further £275. This is in addition to the £875 which was set out in the stage two response which it has previously paid to the resident. This further amount comprises:
  1. £75 in recognition for the additional distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the repairs to the sash windows.
  2. £100 for the additional distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the damp and mould in the bathroom.
  3. £100 for the further distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the heating control electrical cable.
3. Attend the property and reassess the sash windows. Should they need any further work the landlord should put into place details of these works including the timescales for completion of it.

Recommendations

The landlord should contact the resident to obtain details of any current concerns which the resident may have which it has not previously considered by means of its internal complaints process. It should then review them and consider whether any further work is undertaken in respect of the issues.
The landlord should review its process for liaison where a local authority is completing aids and adaptations work in one of its properties, in particular to ensuring it has all relevant documentation when works are completed by the local authority.