Landlords can now complete the Complaint Handling Code Annual Submissions form. More information is available online.

Notting Hill Genesis (NHG) (202114207)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202114207

Notting Hill Genesis (NHG)

18 December 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 the landlord’s:
    1. Communication about cyclical works.
    2. Complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

  1. The resident is the leaseholder of a 1 bedroom flat. Her lease began in July 1998. The landlord is a social housing provider and holds the freehold of the property.
  2. The landlord’s complaints policy states it will provide a response at stage 1 within 10 working days, and at stage 2 within 20 working days. If it is unable to, it would write to the resident and provide an action plan with timescales (up to an extra 10 days at stage 1, which must be agreed by the resident) for resolving the complaint.

Summary of Events

  1. On 2 April 2019, the landlord provided the resident with an explanation about the funds which would be available for cyclical works and how they were likely to be collected. It explained to meet the costs of the cyclical works, it would need to increase service charges for residents. It also explained that the correspondence was a brief indication of costs, and that by 2020, there would be little over half of the anticipated funds.
  2. The resident responded on 4 April 2019 and stated she wanted to discuss the matter that day at a prescheduled block meeting, as the increase in the service charge due to the works, formed part of the increase that was being challenged.
  3. The landlord responded on the same day and explained it appreciated the increase added to financial strain on residents, however the cost of services was also increasing. This was reflected in the service charge, and it had 2 years to find nearly £60,000. Even if some items were removed from the plan at the time of works, the fund would not go as low as £20,000 and this was the amount that would have been in the fund had it not increased the service charge. It explained its aim was to provide an opportunity for it to try and cover the works with the increase, but the amount might not be enough and there may be a further deficit.
  4. Following this discussion, and other issues, the resident raised a complaint on 1 April 2021. She complained about its maintenance of the roof, fly-tipping in the estate, service charge costs incurred for removal of dumped waste. She requested a refund and raised issues with its communication.
  5. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 14 April 2021. It apologised that she was unhappy with the service she had received. It stated it had investigated the complaint and advised in recognition of the fact that many of her complaints were over a period of years, it offered a £250 credit to her service charge account.
  6. The resident sought clarification on the landlord’s compensation offer and was informed on 23 April 2021 that the offer was for all leaseholders in the building, to share. This was because they had all raised communal issues related to the costs of its service provision. It then told her that it typically grouped multiple complaint cases about the same communal issues together to avoid duplication.
  7. The resident told the landlord on 26 April 2021 that she believed she needed to escalate her complaint to stage 2 as she disagreed with its compensation offer. She requested information about the roof maintenance and raised concerns about the costs of the repair, as it had taken 8 months following her neighbours report to be fixed.
  8. The landlord and resident communicated in May 2021. It told her it had reviewed the amount of compensation offered and revised it to £1000. It told her aside from reactive repairs; roof maintenance would be completed as part of the cyclical maintenance programme which typically took place every 7 to 15 years. It advised this depended on the overall condition of the estate and told her the next works were due in 2028, based on a stock condition survey completed by its contractor in 2015.
  9. The resident explained to the landlord she was previously told the increase in her service charge a few years prior was to increase the funds to complete the cyclical works in either 2020/2021 or 2021/2022. She provided it with a copy of the email dated 2 April 2019. The information it had now provided, contradicted this and suggested it had skipped a set of works. That she had been informed by it that a survey was due to be completed in 2019 to inform the works and asked it to investigate when the changes occurred and why. She also told the landlord that she and a few neighbours had decided to continue their complaints together to streamline communication with it.
  10. The resident brought a group complaint to the landlord in June 2021, raising similar issues to those made in her individual complaint. She followed up with the landlord on 3 August 2021 and it told her it would provide her with a response once it had confirmed details around the concerns she raised in the complaint.
  11. The resident contacted the Ombudsman on 9 November 2021, reiterating her concerns around the management of the building and her desired outcomes. This led to contact from the Ombudsman to the landlord on 10 January 2022, asking the landlord to provide her with a stage 2 response.
  12. On 24 February 2022, the landlord provided its stage 2 response to the resident and said it had considered her original complaint response and further correspondence received and:
    1. Said it had reviewed the correspondence and several other complaints that were raised. Updates had been provided to all leaseholders detailing the actions it had taken around these issues. It acknowledged that historically communication was not up to standard due to staff turnover. From its conversation with her, it was clear that the current communication was effective, as she was in regular contact, and it was working closely with her and her neighbours to resolve the outstanding issues.
    2. It acknowledged that it should have explained the avenues it explored around the fly-tipping issue and offered a £100 gesture of goodwill in addition to the £1000 service charge credit offered to all residents in the block.
    3. Told her that its assets team had advised that the next works to the block were due in 2028, and this was based on a stock condition survey completed on 8 October 2015. It explained the data was for guidance purposes and the year does not necessarily correspond to a programme year.
    4. Concluded and found the stage 1 complaint was handled well and in accordance with its internal policies. It said it understood that there had been a high turnover of staff and she had to repeat her frustrations, as such it offered her £50 in compensation for her distress and inconvenience.
    5. Offered a £100 goodwill gesture for the lack of proactiveness over the years around the bulk waste removal issues.
    6. Said it was looking to have the block added to the 23/24 cyclical works for the internal areas of the building and it was not currently scheduled to have any cyclical redecorations completed.

Post complaint

  1. Following the stage 2 response, the landlord and resident continued to communicate around the cyclical works. It provided the residents of the building with an update around its actions to address the fly-tipping and service charges.
  2. The resident contacted the Ombudsman on 2 April 2022 and explained she wanted her complaint dealt with as a group complaint. She provided details of their various complaint points such as the landlord’s handling of fly-tipping, maintenance and repairs to the roof, concerns about cyclical works, standard of service provided, and its complaint handling.
  3. On 15 May 2023, the resident issued a claim against the landlord at the First-Tier Property Tribunal about the issues raised in her complaint. She explained to this service on 13 November 2023 that the communication around cyclical works would be presented to the tribunal as evidence. Following mediation on 28 November 2023, the tribunal case has been settled.

Assessment and findings

Scope of Investigation.

  1. The resident requested for her complaint to be dealt with as a group complaint. The Ombudsman has not been provided with any evidence which suggests that a group complaint was considered or exhausted the landlord’s internal complaint’s procedure. As such this cannot be considered in this report. The complaint responses held by the Ombudsman relates only to the resident’s individual complaint, as such that is the focus of this report.
  2. The resident originally complained about additional issues with the landlord’s maintenance of the building’s roof, response to reports of ongoing fly-tipping on the estate and service charge costs for bulk waste removal and cyclical works. She has confirmed to the Ombudsman on 30 November 2023 that both her and the landlord attended mediation on 28 November 2023, and these issues no longer need to be considered as part of this investigation. As such this report will focus on the issues highlighted in the complaint definition.

Communication about cyclical works.

  1. The resident believed cyclical works should have taken place in 2020/2021 and these had been missed. The resident felt that the landlord’s email in April 2019 informed her that these works were due to take place.
  2. From reviewing the landlord’s correspondence of April 2019, it is the Ombudsman’s opinion that it did not expressly inform the resident that cyclical works were due in 2020/21 or 2021/22. Instead, its email of 2 April 2019 provided an explanation of the funds which were available, and how and when they were likely to be collected. The email also explained that it was a “very brief plan and indication of costs”. The correspondence indicated that by 2020 there would be just over half of the anticipated funds required for works.
  3. The further email of 4 April 2019 referred to by the resident also states the landlord had nearly 2 years to obtain the required funds. This again does not confirm that the works were due to take place in 2020/2021 or 2021/2022. No evidence has been provided that the landlord confirmed when the works were due to begin, but the wording of its email suggested it intended to do something with the funds in those two years.
  4. While the landlord did not make a commitment in its email in April 2019 that works would begin in 2021, the wording of the letter was unclear and caused confusion. By saying that it needed to raise a specific amount of funds by 2021 and no timeframe given for the works, the resident came to the probable conclusion that works would take place when the funds had been received. The resident contacted the landlord soon after receiving the letter and while the conversation was in relation to the increase in the service charge, it was a missed opportunity for the landlord to explain any anticipated timescales for future works. This led the resident to have a reasonable expectation that works would take place in 2021. 
  5. When the resident raised this issue with the landlord in 2021, it appropriately contacted the relevant department and took this as an opportunity to explain to the resident about the required survey prior to any planned works. It also told her about when anticipated works were scheduled and looked to see if it could bring forward some of the works, and provided an update that this was not possible. It completed some works to the building outside of the planned works, when the resident identified issues such as with the door.

Complaint handling.

  1. In its stage 1 response, the landlord provided the resident with information around her complaint and provided explanations on when works were to be completed on the roof and what they were. It also provided an explanation of how it had arrived at the costs for the bulk waste removal and why it believed it was correctly charging residents. It further appropriately explained the actions it had taken to address the issue of fly-tipping the resident complained about. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, this showed that the landlord took a customer focused approach in helping the resident to understand the reasons for its actions.
  2. Following the stage 1 response, the resident expressed an intention to escalate her complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s process in April 2021. No evidence was provided that this was ever acknowledged by the landlord. No explanation was provided about why this was missed. In the Ombudsman’s opinion this was unsatisfactory.
  3. The resident then looked to bring a group complaint to the landlord on 1 June 2021. This was 4 working days after a stage 2 response to her individual complaint should have been issued. The landlord explained to this service that the resident appeared to be under the impression that individual complaints by multiple residents could be combined into a group complaint after individual responses had been provided.
  4. The resident attempted to escalate her complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s process in August 2021, however, the evidence shows the escalation request was the group complaint, rather than her individual complaint. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord should have been thorough in its analysis of the request, identified it referred to the group complaint and queried if the resident also wanted to escalate her individual complaint.
  5. A complaint response was then not provided until the Ombudsman’s involvement. However, this was in relation to the resident’s individual complaint. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord should have properly investigated the complaint, taken consideration of the issues, and identified that there were two separate complaints it needed to respond to.
  6. In total it took the landlord over 9 months to provide a formal stage 2 response following the resident’s attempt to escalate in April 2021. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the delay in providing the resident with a response was unreasonable.
  7. There was further conversation following this between the landlord and resident. It is acknowledged that the resident also brought a group complaint to it. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, it would have been good practice for it to have clarified that’s its response was in relation to her individual complaint.
  8. The landlord provided no explanation about why there was a prolonged delay in providing the resident a stage 2 response. There was no evidence provided that the escalation request was acknowledged or that there was any conversation about an extension for a response to be provided. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, this was unreasonable. Such a delay would have led the resident to lose confidence in the landlord’s handling of her complaint. The fact the matter remained outstanding for so long raises questions about the landlord’s record keeping and communication.
  9. The landlord also acknowledged in its responses to the resident there had been issues with its approach and looked to compensate her for the matters complained about. Its compensation offer was, however, for the entire building but addressed to the resident in her complaint response. She then had to seek clarification on the matter. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, this was unacceptable. The landlord should have made it clear exactly what compensation it was offering the resident individually. Not doing this would have added to her frustration with the landlord around its communication and led to her taking the time to seek clarification around its offer.
  10. The landlord also failed to acknowledge the delay in its complaint handling in its stage 2 response. It is unclear if it was aware that there had been a significant delay between the resident’s first attempt to escalate and it providing her with a response. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, this was unreasonable.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme, there was:
    1. Service failure with the landlord’s communication about cyclical works.
    2. Maladministration with the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

  1. The landlord’s communication about the cyclical works was confusing and led to misinterpretation. It then created an expectation for the resident that the works would begin at a certain point in time.
  2. There was a substantial delay in the landlord’s stage 2 response to the resident. It was not until this services intervention that it provided a response. It did not acknowledge her escalation or the fact that it was delayed in its response.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of this report, the landlord must:
    1. Provide the resident with an apology around its failings.
    2. Pay the resident £100 for its failing around its communication about the cyclical works.
    3. Pay the resident £500 for its complaint handling failings.
    4. Provide proof of compliance with these orders.