Notting Hill Genesis (NHG) (202126736)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202126736

Notting Hill Genesis (NHG)

30 September 2024

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 is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of various repairs.
This Service has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The property is a 2-bedroom ground floor flat. She lives in the property with her 2 young children. The landlord’s records show that the resident suffers from symptoms of depression and anxiety.
On 5 July 2021, the resident emailed the landlord a quote for replacement flooring that was damaged by its contractors in 2019. On 29 July 2021, the landlord requested 3 quotes and said it would only repair the section of damaged flooring. On 2 August 2021, the resident replied that the landlord had only requested 1 quote, and the damaged flooring was only for the kitchen and living room area.
On 11 December 2021, the resident reported that her hot water tank fell from the wall. On 15 December 2021, the resident chased the repair and asked the landlord to respond about her ongoing flooring problem. The landlord attended on 15 December 2021 and temporarily repaired the hot water tank. It raised an order to complete the repair and make good the damage caused to the wall. On 16 December 2021, the landlord raised a job to replace the flooring. It replaced the flooring between 14 and 16 February 2022.
On 6 March 2022, the resident raised a complaint. She was unhappy with the quality of the work, the behaviour of the landlord’s contractors, the condition it left the property after the repairs, and the disruption caused. She and her children had to sleep on the sofa and on her friend’s floor. On 7 March 2022, she further complained about outstanding repairs which the landlord had overlooked, including the hot water tank, and a crack in a wall and skirting. She said that it caused worry to herself and her kids. As a resolution, she wanted an independent surveyor to assess the damage, the repairs completed, and compensation.
On 21 April 2022, the landlord emailed the resident and apologised for its delay in providing a stage 2 complaint response. It said that it had not found a supplier to attend to her flooring. It suggested that the resident use her initial supplier to install the flooring and it would pay. It said that it would consider compensation when it completed the repair. On 3 May 2022, the resident said she had a quote for the floor and asked the landlord to fix the hot water tank to the wall stating that she was having difficulty arranging an appointment with the contractor. On 11 May 2022, the contractor carried out that repair.
On 23 May 2022, a solicitor notified the landlord that the resident was initiating a disrepair claim. The outstanding repairs included repairing the flooring and a detached wall in the living room. The landlord surveyed the property on 1 August 2022. The wall was not found to be unsafe, but it recommended repair. The surveyor recommended that skirtings were refixed to the flooring.
Between 5 October 2022 and 13 October 2022, the landlord decanted the resident, carried out repairs recommended in the survey, and replaced her flooring. On 16 December 2022, the resident asked who was handling her complaint and compensation as she waited a response. She said that the landlord disregarded her and there was no communication. The resident made a new report of mould in a cupboard which caused distress and damage to personal belongings.
On 19 December 2022, the landlord provided a stage 2 complaint response. It upheld the complaint. It apologised for its delay in providing a complaint response. It offered compensation of £550, compromising:
1. £100 for its delay in providing a complaint response.
2. £100 for the poor workmanship when it initially replaced the flooring.
3. £150 for stress and inconvenience caused by the disruption when replacing the flooring.
4. £100 for delay in arranging a second contractor to complete the flooring repair.
5. £50 for the way it returned her belongings after the repair.
6. £50 for ignoring her instructions about a family heirloom.
On 6 January 2023, the resident wrote to the landlord that the compensation was not sufficient. The landlord emailed the resident on 31 January 2023 with an increased offer of £1500. It said that the offer was specific to matters arising from the loss of power to her property in 2019 and related events that followed. It confirmed that it would be making a separate offer to tenants of the block in recognition of many issues of the years, particularly the impact of a cladding project. The resident refused the offer. On 17 May 2023, the landlord provided this Service with a copy of the stage 2 complaint response.

Events after the internal complaints process

On 26 July 2023, the landlord provided the resident with a revised complaint response. It increased its offer of compensation to £625. It apologised for the delay in dealing with a report of damp and mould and offered £50 for the delay. It also offered £25 for its delay in fixing the hot water tank to the wall.
On 5 December 2023, the resident signed a memorandum of agreement. The landlord offered £13,118.03 general compensation for all claims for damages that may arise from the condition of the property, including, “any individual complaints you may have relating to the interior of the property”.
On 24 January 2023, the resident advised this Service that she remained unhappy with the landlord’s handling of her complaint. As a resolution, she wanted compensation of £30,000, to be rehoused, and for the landlord not to repeat the same repair issues she experienced.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

For completeness, and fairness to both the landlord and the resident, this Service has increased the scope of the investigation beyond the initial stage 2 complaint response by the landlord. This is because the landlord issued a further stage 2 complaint response on 26 July 2023 which included its response to a report of damp and mould.
This Service notes that the resident has said that the landlord’s handling of the repairs has impacted her health and wellbeing and that of her children. We do not dispute the resident’s comments.
Whilst we are an alternative dispute resolution service, we are unable to establish legal liability on whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action have had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health or finances. Nor can we calculate or award damages. This Service is therefore unable to consider any personal injury aspects of the resident’s complaint. Such decisions require an assessment of liability and are decided by a court or insurer.
It is noted that the landlord made offers of compensation outside the complaint procedure which encompassed other issues not included within the resident’s complaint. This investigation has only assessed the landlord’s response to the complaint as part of its complaints process and offers of redress within its complaint responses.
Since the complaint was brought to this Service, the resident has reported further repair issues including damp and mould. As these issues did not form part of the formal complaint to the landlord under consideration, this is not something that this Service can investigate at this stage as the landlord needs to be provided with the opportunity to investigate and respond to these reports. The resident will need to contact the landlord and, if appropriate, raise a separate complaint to get this matter resolved. She may then approach this Service should she remain dissatisfied.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of various repairs.

It is not disputed that there were failings with the landlord’s response to the resident’s repairs. In its complaint response the landlord apologised for its response to the resident’s repair requests and offered redress. When a landlord has accepted a failing, it is the role of this Service to consider if redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily. This Service considers whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
The landlord accepted there was a service failure when it installed the flooring. It acknowledged that it had caused distress and inconvenience to the resident because she did not have full use of her property and some amenities including her kitchen, bathroom, and bedrooms, while it carried out the repair between the 14 and 16 February 2022. It offered £150 for this service failure.
It is reasonable to expect some level of disruption when repairs are carried out. This Service would expect that the landlord communicates effectively with the resident to manage her expectations and take practical measures, if possible, to minimise the disruption for the resident. The landlord emailed the resident on 28 January 2022 to advise her that it was her responsibility to remove any obstacles for the contractors to carry out the work.
While it was unfortunate that the resident lost amenities when furniture was moved into different rooms to facilitate the work, there is no evidence that the landlord was aware of this issue before the works began. As a result, she and her children slept on a sofa on the first night. In her initial complaint, the resident said that the landlord offered to put her up in a hotel on 15 February 2022, but this offer was declined, and she stayed with a friend. This was a reasonable offer by the landlord in the circumstances and, in this Service’s opinion, its offer of £150 to reflect distress and inconvenience appropriately put things right for the resident.
After the landlord replaced the flooring, the resident complained about the quality of the installation. She said that a professional inspected the flooring and said that it would eventually lift up. In response the landlord suggested that the resident source her preferred supplier and arrange the fitting and it would pay the supplier directly. In its complaint response it accepted the work was poor and offered £100 for this failure. This was a reasonable offer in the circumstances to put things right for the resident.
The resident replied with an estimated cost, noting that it would take between 3 and 5 days to complete the work. She requested for her household to be decanted for the duration of the repair. The landlord requested a copy of the quote, asked which hotel she would prefer to be decanted to, when she would like the works to be completed, and suggested a visit to the property to check on other outstanding works that need to be completed before it booked the flooring works. This was a reasonable response by the landlord in line with the resident’s request.
The resident instructed a solicitor to initiate a disrepair claim which alleged that the floor works were poor with gaps in the flooring. The landlord surveyed the flooring and noted that some areas of the flooring it laid had not been completed and skirting needed to be refixed to the flooring. It arranged a decant for the resident and carried out the repair in October 2022. This was 6 months after the initial installation.
The landlord accepted this delay was unreasonable. This Service has also considered that the landlord offered for the resident to source her own supplier, it surveyed the property after a disrepair claim was initiated, and it had to arrange a decant, all of which contributed to the delay. On balance, the landlord’s offer of £100 for the delay was reasonable in the circumstances.
The resident reported that a hot water tank fell from her wall on 11 December 2021. It temporarily repaired the issue on 15 December 2021 and the evidence shows it followed up and refixed the tank to the wall on 11 May 2022. The landlord’s repair policy aims to complete routine repairs within 20 working days. The accepted that the repair delay was excessive and offered £25 to reflect the delay. There is no evidence that the repair was urgent or caused any detriment to the resident beyond awaiting the landlord to complete the repair. This Service finds that the offer was reasonable in the circumstances.
In her disrepair claim, the resident reported that there was a defective wall in the living room which had detached itself from the skirting board. In its survey, the landlord noted that wall was not found to be unsafe, and it carried out the repair when the resident was decanted. This was reasonable in the circumstances.
The resident reported damp and mould in an internal cupboard to the landlord on 16 December 2022. A repair order was raised that day and it attended on 3 January 2023. It removed the mould, redecorated the area, and applied mould paint. This was an appropriate response within its repair timescales.
This Service finds that there was reasonable redress offered by the landlord when it identified service failures in its response to the resident’s repair requests. This is because it considered the detriment to the resident and put things right by repairing the issues, and offering redress for the delay, distress, and inconvenience, which in this Service’s opinion put things right for the resident.

Complaint handling

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.
On 6 March 2022, the resident emailed a complaint to the resident following her verbal complaint on 18 February 2022. The landlord should accept complaints in any form and its policy states that it does accept complaints verbally. This Service does not doubt the resident raised a complaint on that date but cannot determine when the complaint was initially made as the landlord’s records only show the complaint registered on its system on the 7 March 2022
After the complaint was registered on 7 March 2022, the landlord did not provide a stage 1 complaint response and provided a stage 2 complaint response on 19 December 2022. This was 200 working days after it registered the complaint. This was an unreasonable and unacceptable delay, significantly beyond its timescales and in breach of the Code.
The landlord’s failing caused time and trouble to the resident who chased the landlord for complaint responses. On 8 April 2022, the resident expressed her frustration that the landlord had not provided a stage 1 complaint response in line with its policy.
The landlord failed to acknowledge and address complaint issues raised by the resident. In particular, the resident complained about the behaviour of the contractors installing the flooring, including an instance of leaving the property unsecured. This Service would expect the landlord to investigate the allegations and provide the resident with an outcome of its investigation in its complaint response. In line with the Code, the landlord should have clearly defined its understanding of the complaint so that aspects of the complaint are not overlooked, and the resident would have a clear understanding of what the landlord would investigate.
The landlord bypassed its stage 1 complaint response. It replied to the resident on 21 April 2022 and apologised for the lack of communication. It said that her stage 2 complaint response was long overdue and said it was attempting to find a supplier to lay her new flooring. It said it would consider the resident’s compensation when it completed the repairs.
It is evident that the landlord attempted to carry out the repairs before issuing its complaint responses. It is not realistic for a landlord to address every substantive issue before providing a complaint response. The landlord should address the issues identified up until the point of its complaint response and commit to resolving the outstanding issues within a reasonable timescale and set out clearly to the resident how it plans to do so.
After the landlord completed repairs in October 2022, it did not provide the resident with a stage 2 complaint response until 19 December 2022 after the resident chased a response. It said that the person dealing with her complaint had moved departments and as such, her complaint was overlooked. This was inappropriate. The landlord should have systems in place for escalating complaints through its process. Based on the evidence, it is unclear if the resident would have received a complaint response had she not chased it.
After the stage 2 complaint response, the resident raised a further issue about damp and mould in her property. The landlord added this new issue to this complaint and provided a further complaint response. This was inappropriate. The landlord should have treated this as a separate issue and raised a new complaint. However, for completeness, this Service increased the scope of the complaint to provide the landlord and the resident with a decision on that issue.
This Service finds that there was maladministration with the landlord’s complaint handling. Its complaint handling was inappropriate, and it did not follow its own policy or comply with the Code. It failed to escalate the complaint appropriately, it failed to identify and investigate aspects of the resident’s complaint, and its communication with the resident was poor. This Service would have found severe maladministration but for the landlord addressing some of its complaint handling failings.
Its offer of £100 for its delay in providing a response was not reflective of the inconvenience, time, and trouble caused to the resident. An order for compensation has been made below in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance. When calculating compensation, consideration has been given to the significant delay in providing a complaint response, the lack of communication with the resident, and its failure to identify and investigate all aspects of the complaint.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 53 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress, in response to the resident’s reports of repairs, prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration with the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

It is ordered for the landlord to write to the resident and apologise for the complaint handling failures identified in this report.
It is ordered for the landlord to pay the resident compensation of £400 for the time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience caused to the resident by its complaint handling failures. If it has already paid £100 offered in its stage 2 response, this can be deducted from the amount.
The landlord should provide evidence to this Service that it has complied with the above order within 4 weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

If it has not already done so, it is recommended that the landlord pay the resident £525 offered in its stage 2 complaint response for its failings in its response to the resident’s repair requests. A finding of reasonable redress was made on the basis of this offer.