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

Notting Hill Genesis (NHG) (202125308)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202125308

Notting Hill Genesis

6 September 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 handling of:
    1. Repairs to the porch ceiling.
    2. The associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord.
  2. On 28 June 2021, the resident reported to the landlord’s managing agent that the porch had partially collapsed. The porch contained asbestos.
  3. On 14 April 2022, the resident submitted a complaint to the landlord via the Ombudsman about outstanding repairs to a communal porch. The Ombudsman explained to the landlord that the resident submitted a complaint on 17 January 2022 but had not received a response. The Ombudsman asked the landlord to provide its stage 1 complaint response to the resident by 3 May 2022.
  4. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 8 June 2022. The landlord stated that its managing agent did not respond to the resident’s complaint from January 2022. Therefore, it agreed to address the complaint, following contact from the Ombudsman. The landlord explained that there were two service failures. It stated that the first failure was the delay with the managing agent forwarding the structural report to the landlord. The landlord stated that the second failure was the delay in arranging the first asbestos appointment. It offered the resident £50 compensation for the failures and explained that it would need to arrange a new appointment to complete the works.

 

  1. On 8 June 2022, the resident emailed the landlord expressing dissatisfaction with it stage 1 complaint response. The landlord responded to the resident on 14 June 2022 and asked the resident to confirm if he was requesting his complaint to be escalated to the next stage of its complaints process. The resident responded on the same day and confirmed that he would like his complaint escalated to the next stage.
  2. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 23 August 2022. It apologised for the delay with providing its stage 2 complaint response. The landlord also acknowledged that the overall handling of the resident’s complaint had been poor. It also acknowledged that there had been a further delay in completing works to repair the porch. The landlord offered the resident £550 compensation to acknowledge the service failures. It also offered the resident £30 vouchers for the inconvenience of having to leave his home for the day, for scheduled repair works.
  3. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and submitted his complaint to the Ombudsman. He stated his desired outcome was for the landlord to complete all the required remedial works to a satisfactory standard and in a timely manner. The resident also stated that he would like the landlord to improve its communication with the resident in regarding planned actions for repairs. He also stated that he would like an increased level of compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused.
  4. Both the resident and landlord have confirmed with the Ombudsman that the repair works to the porch are still outstanding. The landlord has stated that it is planning to carry out the scheduled works on 21 September 2023. It confirmed that it has already written to the impacted residents and is awaiting a response.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the porch ceiling.

  1. The landlord’s repairs policy states that it is responsible for repairing the structure of a resident’s property including the roof, outside walls, doors, windows, and windowsills. The policy also states that it aims to attend to emergency repairs within 4 hours and have all major services restored within 24 hours. It also states that it will complete a routine repair within 20 working days from the date it was reported.
  2. The landlord’s asbestos policy states that it has a duty of care to ensure that it mitigates any risks associated with asbestos to customers, residents, employees, contractors, and members of the public as far as reasonably practical.
  3. On 28 June 2021, the landlord’s managing agent was informed that the communal porch had partially collapsed. The landlord was also notified about the repair issue on the same day. The landlord and managing agent attended to the repair on the same day it was reported. The porch was made safe and some of the asbestos was removed. The Ombudsman recognises that the landlord took reasonable steps to make the porch safe and attended in line with its emergency repair timescales referenced in its repairs policy.
  4. Although the landlord made the porch safe, there were still further works required to entirely repair the porch. The landlord’s managing agent arranged for a structural survey to be carried out, which was completed in July 2021. However, the landlord’s managing agent did not forward the report to the landlord until January 2022. The Ombudsman believes that the delay was unacceptable and would have expected the landlord to chase the managing agent for the structural report. The structural report recommended several works to repair the porch.
  5. After the landlord received the structural report in January 2022, it did not attempt to carry out the works to repair the porch until April 2022. The landlord planned to carry out repair works on 22 April 2022 and required all residents to leave their properties between 9am and 5pm in order for the works to be completed. The contractor also needed to use electricity supply from one of the residents located on the ground floor to carry out the works. The residents left their property on the day, but the repair works were not completed, as the resident who had agreed that the contractor could use their electricity supply had already left the property. The Ombudsman recognises that this was somewhat outside of the landlord’s control. However, the Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to have tried to use a different resident’s electricity supply if it was possible.
  6. The landlord offered the resident £30 vouchers for the inconvenience of having to leave his property between 9am and 5pm on 22 April 2022. The resident has stated that he is unhappy with the offer of the vouchers and would like to receive compensation for incurred reasonable expenses. In this instance, the Ombudsman believes the landlord’s offer of the vouchers was reasonable. A landlord would normally only be required to pay a disturbance payment or meal allowance if a resident was decanted (temporarily moved) to alternative accommodation such as a hotel overnight. Therefore, the Ombudsman would not expect the landlord to reimburse the resident’s expenses for 22 April 2022 when he left his property for the day.
  7. Shortly after the failed appointment, the landlord did take reasonable steps to arrange a new appointment date quickly. The new proposed appointment date was 13 May 2022. The landlord contacted the five affected residents who would be required to leave their property for the day to inform them of the date. However, the landlord stated that the resident refused to leave his property on that day. Therefore, it had to cancel the appointment. The Ombudsman acknowledges that the resident refusing to leave the property was outside of the landlord’s control and recognises that it would not have been able to go ahead with the scheduled works.
  8. However, after the cancelled appointment, the landlord failed to try and attempt to rearrange a further appointment to carry out the works. At present, the porch repair is still outstanding and there is still asbestos present in the porch. The repair has been outstanding for over 2 years. The landlord has informed the Ombudsman that it plans to carry out the repair works on 21 September 2023. The resident should cooperate with the landlord by leaving his property for the required time to enable the works to be carried out. The Ombudsman acknowledges that some of the delay was outside of the landlord’s control but overall, the length of time the repair has been outstanding is unreasonable. In addition, there has also been a lack of communication and updates from the landlord to the resident regarding when the porch repairs would be completed.
  9. The landlord did acknowledge in its stage two complaint response that there were delays in repairing the porch. The landlord offered the resident compensation of £400 to recognise the delay and inconvenience in completing the repair to the porch. The Ombudsman believes in this instance, the landlord should pay the resident additional compensation to recognise the further delay, as the repair is still currently outstanding. The landlord should pay the resident additional compensation of £250. This amount is in addition to the compensation offered in the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response.
  10. The additional compensation is appropriate to recognise the further delay the resident has experienced in the repair works being completed. The compensation is also compliant with the landlord’s complaints policy, which states that the landlord will award compensation of over £250 where there has been significant time and delay to resolve an issue. Also, the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance suggests awards of £600 to £1000 where there has been a failure which adversely affected the resident, and which may have gone on for a significant period of time. In this case, the repair to the porch is still outstanding and has been outstanding for over 2 years.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

  1. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the code) sets out the Ombudsman’s expectations for landlords’ complaint handling practices. The code states that a stage 1 response should be provided within 10 working days of the complaint. It also states that a stage 2 response should be provided within 20 working days. The landlord’s complaints policy references the same timescales as the code. The code also states that a landlord must accept a complaint unless there is a valid reason not to do so.
  2. At the time the resident raised his complaint, the landlord employed a managing agent managing several properties, including the resident’s property. The landlord informed the resident that he would need to submit his complaint to the managing agent rather than the landlord. The resident first submitted his complaint to the managing agent on 17 January 2022. However, the resident received no response to his complaint. The resident contacted the landlord and explained that he had not received a response to his complaint from its managing agent. The landlord explained to the resident that he had to exhaust the managing agent’s complaint procedure before it could investigate the resident’s complaint.
  3. The Ombudsman believes it was unreasonable for the landlord not to consider the resident’s complaint when he informed the landlord in February 2022 that he had not received a response from the managing agent. This action taken by the landlord was not compliant with the code. The tenancy agreement was issued by the landlord and the complaint was in relation to a repair issue at the property. Therefore, the landlord should have taken steps to respond to the resident’s complaint when he informed it that he had not received a response from the managing agent. The landlord is responsible for the actions of its management agent.
  4. The landlord only agreed to address the complaint after the resident contacted the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman contacted the landlord on 14 April 2022 and asked it to provide its stage 1 complaint response to the resident by 3 May 2022. The landlord failed to provide it stage 1 complaint response by the requested deadline. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 8 June 2022. The response time was late and not compliant with the code or the landlord’s own complaints policy.
  5. On 14 June 2022, the resident requested his complaint to be escalated to the next stage of the landlord’s complaints process. It took around two months for the landlord to provide its stage 2 response, which was provided on 23 August 2022. Therefore, the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response was also late.
  6. The Ombudsman recognises that the landlord’s complaint handling error and delay could have caused significant inconvenience to the resident, and it would have delayed the resident in progressing his complaint to the Ombudsman because he needed to wait for the landlord’s final response before contacting our service. However, the landlord did acknowledge and apologise in its stage two response for its delay in responding to the resident’s complaint. It also acknowledged that its complaint handling had been poor and recognised that it should have considered the resident’s complaint sooner than it did. The landlord offered the resident a total of £150 compensation to recognise its complaint handling errors.
  7. The compensation offered to the resident is compliant with The Ombudsman’s Remedies guidance referenced above. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the compensation proportionately reflects the landlord’s complaint handling errors and the impact of the delay on the resident, and it amounts to reasonable redress in this case.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the porch ceiling.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53 (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 about the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders

  1. The landlord to complete the scheduled repair works on 21 September 2023, which it stated it would do. If all the residents are unable to leave the property on the 21 September for the works to be completed, the landlord should schedule a different date to repair the porch and contact the affected residents with the new scheduled date. The resident should cooperate with the landlord by leaving his property for the required time to enable the works to be carried out.
  2. The landlord to pay the resident an additional £250 compensation for errors in its handling of repairs to the porch ceiling.
  3. The landlord should provide the Ombudsman with evidence that it has complied with these orders within four weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord pay the resident its compensation offer of £550 which was offered in it stage 2 complaint response if it has not already done so.
  2. It is recommended that the landlord provides the resident with £30 vouchers if it has not already done so.
  3. It is recommended that the landlord pays appropriate compensation to the other residents located in the building who have been impacted by the outstanding repairs to the porch ceiling in line with its own compensation policy and the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.