Notting Hill Genesis (NHG) (202127889)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202127889

Notting Hill Genesis (NHG)

11 April 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 resident’s complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. Repairs to the communal door entry system.
2. Leaks into the property.

Background and summary of events

The resident is a shared ownership leaseholder of the landlord under a lease dated 16 June 2008. The property is a 1 bedroom fourth floor flat within a 7 storey block, it has an open plan living room and kitchen area.
The landlord holds a head lease for the block and is responsible for maintenance and repair of the internal communal areas. A separate freeholder is responsible for maintenance and repair of the structure of the building. The freeholder employs a managing agent to carry out these duties on its behalf.
Section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act requires the landlord to carry out a consultation process before undertaking any major works which will require leaseholders to contribute in excess of £250.
The landlord’s repairs policy says that, where the responsibility for a repair does not lie with it, it “will always pass on the details of said repair to the relevant party and liaise to ensure its satisfactory completion”.
On 20 September 2022, the landlord sent a mass email out to all residents of the block. It said issues with the door entry system had been reported by several residents. The landlord clarified that the managing agent was responsible for the maintenance of the door entry system and would be appointing a contractor to investigate. It asked any residents affected by the issues to notify it so that it could pass their details on.
The resident reported a leak from her kitchen ceiling to the landlord on 26 October 2022. She said this was going into her oven. The landlord advised her to approach the leaseholder of the flat above her and ask them to check for leaks from their property.
On 28 October 2022, the resident reported that water was now dripping from her living room light fixture. The landlord sent a contractor out the same day. The contractor checked the electrics and deemed them safe but said that a plumber was required to find the source of the leak.
The resident emailed the landlord reporting issues with the door entry system at the block on 30 October 2022.
On 31 October 2022, the landlord contacted the managing agent regarding the leak in the block – which was now affecting several properties. On the same day, the landlord sent the first issue of a new monthly newsletter to all residents on the resident’s development by email. This advised that it was aware of “a building wide problem” with the door entry system and was working with the managing agent to arrange for a contractor to attend and inspect it.
The landlord, managing agent and a contractor visited the block on 3 November 2022. They inspected the resident’s flat and 2 others directly above it and identified that the leak was originating from the roof of the block.
On 8 November 2022, the managing agent sent a second contractor to inspect the roof of the block. It identified an area of shrubbery growing on the roof and believed the roots may have pierced the waterproofing membrane.
The Ombudsman contacted the landlord on the resident’s behalf, on 17 November 2022, asking it to log a complaint about its handling of her reports of the leak and issues with the door entry system.
On 23 November 2022, the landlord sent its monthly newsletter. It clarified that repairs to the roof were the responsibility of the managing agent, and that the managing agent’s contractor would be carrying out works which were due to be finished by 27 November 2022 – dependent upon weather conditions. The landlord said it was waiting for the managing agent to propose times and dates to investigate the door entry system issues – which would require access to affected flats.
The managing agent’s contractor completed works to the roof on 1 December 2022.
On 3 December 2022, the landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response. It said that:
1. It had been liaising with the managing agent regarding the door entry system but had no liability for this and was unable to action any repairs itself.
2. It had introduced the monthly newsletter and both issues to date had included updates on the door entry system. It believed it had done everything it could to keep residents updated on the progress of the “complex repair”.
3. It had been in regular contact with the resident regarding the leak and provided updates by email and newsletter, however, this was also not its responsibility to repair.
4. It had negotiated with the managing agent to provide a “food allowance” of £20 per day to the resident due to her being unable to use her oven. This had been agreed from 16 November 2022.
5. Remedial redecoration of the water damage to the resident’s flat would be arranged once it had confirmed that the recently completed repairs had resolved the leak.
The landlord sent its monthly newsletter on 22 December 2022. It said it believed the leak from the roof had now been resolved but would continue to monitor the block for water ingress before arranging remedial redecoration of affected flats. The landlord advised that 2 contractors had checked the door entry system and found it to be “beyond economical repair” and therefore the managing agent had recommended that the system be replaced.
On 4 January 2023, the landlord sent a section 20 notice to the resident regarding replacement of the door entry system. It said it anticipated work would commence in March 2023.
Between 27 January and 1 February 2023, the managing agent had a contractor carry out remedial decorative work to the resident’s property.
On 6 February 2023, the resident reported to the landlord that the leak had started again in the same location.
The landlord arranged for a contractor to investigate and trace the leak on 9 February 2023. They were unable to identify the source.
The landlord provided its monthly newsletter on 10 February 2023. It said that a further leak had been reported in the block, that investigations were ongoing, and it would continue to liaise directly with affected residents. The landlord said it now expected replacement of the door entry system to be undertaken in late March or April 2023.
On 13 February 2023, the resident asked to escalate her complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s process. She expressed dissatisfaction that the leak was still ongoing and spreading.
The landlord emailed residents of the block on 20 February 2023. It said that, despite continued investigations, it had been unable to locate the source of the leak. It advised that it would be arranging a surveyor’s inspection to recommend next steps.
The landlord’s surveyor inspected the block, including accessing properties affected by the leak, on 24 February 2023. The surveyor recommended that intrusive investigations be commenced to source the leak.
On 1 March 2023, the landlord sent a ‘notice of estimates’ for the new door entry system to the resident. This provided several options for replacing the defunct system and advised a consultation on this would run until 3 April 2023.
The landlord referred the new leak to the managing agent on 13 March 2023. It said that its intrusive investigations had identified that this leak was also coming from the roof. The managing agent said that it would begin investigations into this.
The landlord sent its monthly newsletter out on 16 March 2023. It informed residents that it now believed the current leak was also coming from the roof (albeit a different area to the previous leak) and had reported this to the managing agent. It said the managing agent was making urgent enquiries to resolve this. It confirmed that repairs and redecoration of affected flats would be dealt with as soon as possible and it had raised an insurance claim with the managing agent to cover this.
On the same day, the landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response to the resident. It said that:
1. Communication had been clear about the door entry replacement, with action taken as quickly as possible to progress the matter.
2. Due to the complexity of the leak it was taking it some time to resolve, however, it had been working consistently to do so.
3. Since identifying that the leak was coming from the roof, it had been in close communication with the managing agent to ensure that progress was being made.
4. It recognised the stress and inconvenience the leak had caused and wished to offer the resident £100 compensation as a goodwill gesture due to this. It would also offer a further £100 for inconvenience caused by having to wipe down mould on the leak affected area.
5. It would continue to update residents using the monthly newsletter and emails on both matters.

Events since landlord’s stage 2 complaint response

On 3 April 2023, the landlord requested for a contractor to carry out a mould wash and temporarily box over the leak affected area in the resident’s property. This was completed on 21 April 2023.
Repairs to the roof were completed by the managing agent’s contractor on 20 April 2023. The landlord explained in its newsletter of 24 April 2023 that, as with the previous leak, it would allow a monitoring period before arranging remedial redecoration works.
The new door entry system was installed on 6 June and 7 June 2023.
On 28 June 2023, the landlord informed residents that the managing agent’s insurers had approved a contractor to complete the remedial redecoration works.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 14 July 2023. It said there had been repeated difficulties in arranging access to her property to obtain quotes for the redecoration. The contractor had therefore estimated the cost of the works based on information available to it. To avoid further delays and access issues it had requested that the insurer offer the resident a ‘settlement fee’ of £1,831.35 plus VAT in order to procure her own contractor to carry out the works.

Assessment and findings

Both the door entry system and the roof (which was the source of both leaks) are the responsibility of the freeholder of the block under the terms of the landlord’s head lease. Accordingly, the landlord’s responsibility – as appropriately defined by its repairs policy – extended only to passing on details of the repair and ensuring it was concluded satisfactorily. This investigation will focus on whether the landlord met that responsibility and communicated reasonably with the resident whilst doing so.

Door entry system

It is apparent that the landlord had been made aware of issues with the door entry system at some point prior to 20 September 2022 – when it sent out an email to residents about this. In this communication, the landlord asked all affected residents to contact it. The landlord has advised that the resident did not do so, and therefore it can be surmised that they were not affected by the issues at this point.
The resident did report an issue with the door entry system on 30 October 2022. The following day, the landlord sent the first of its monthly newsletters to residents of the block. This provided an efficient way for the landlord to keep all residents updated on the progress of the works and ensure information provided was consistent. The newsletter advised that it was aware of widespread issues and that the managing agent, which was responsible for the door entry system, was investigating. The landlord has provided evidence that this newsletter was received and opened by the resident.
Further updates were provided in newsletters sent on 23 November and 22 December 2022 – both of which were also received and opened by the resident. The December newsletter advised that the managing agent’s contractors had inspected and determined the system to be beyond economical repair. Whilst the delay of almost 2 months from issues being identified to this finding being reached was somewhat lengthy, there is nothing the landlord could have reasonably done to expedite this.
Work to replace the door entry system was further delayed by the need for the landlord to follow the section 20 consultation process in order to reclaim the costs of the work from leaseholders. As this was a legal necessity, and carried out in a timely manner, there is no evidence of any failure in this regard either.
Although the section 20 process for the resident’s block ended on 4 April 2023, the landlord’s newsletter of 24 April 2023 explained that a similar consultation was still ongoing for another block within the development and work was expected to start in early June 2023. Whilst it is noted that previous newsletters had provided earlier dates for the commencement of works, it was appropriate for the landlord to attempt to give resident an expectation of when the work would be done, and this Services acknowledges the difficulty in estimating timeframes for such largescale works – particularly when they are outside of the landlord’s direct control.
In summary, this Service appreciates the inconvenience that may have been caused to the resident by the door entry system not functioning correctly over an extended period. However, there is no evidence of any delay in the replacement of the door entry system due to the landlord’s action, or lack thereof. The landlord appropriately liaised with the managing agent, communicated regular updates to residents via its newsletter and followed the section 20 consultation process. Therefore, no evidence of maladministration has been identified.

Leaks

When the resident first reported a leak into her property through the kitchen ceiling on 26 October 2022, the landlord advised her to speak to the leaseholder above her and ask them to check for a leak from their property. This was reasonable considering the resident was on the fourth of 6 floors, with no issues reported by the properties above at that time. The landlord also proactively contacted the leaseholder above directly, in case the resident was not willing/able to do so.
On 28 October 2022, after the resident reported the leak was now going into her living room light fitting, the landlord sent an electrician to ensure the resident’s electrics were not compromised. Although at this point the landlord had no reason to believe the leak was a communal issue, it was reasonable for it to ensure the property was safe and allow the resident peace of mind.
On 31 October 2022, the landlord raised the leak (which was now affecting several properties) with the managing agent. Emails between the 2 parties evidence that the landlord was extremely conscious of the urgency of the matter, requesting that the managing agent attend with it on 3 November 2022 as opposed to waiting until 8 November 2022 when the managing agent’s contractor was due to attend. It was following this 3 November 2022 visit that it was identified that the leak was originating from the roof and was the managing agent’s responsibility to repair.
The landlord appropriately updated residents in its newsletter of 23 November 2022, informing them works were due to be completed on 27 November 2022, subject to weather conditions. The works were subsequently completed on 1 December 2022. This was within a month of the source of the leak being identified which was reasonable considering the scale of the work and some delays due to adverse weather conditions.
As per its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord also reasonably negotiated for the managing agent to provide the resident with a food allowance of £20 per day which she could claim back whilst the leak was ongoing and affecting her oven – and thus ability to cook.
The landlord’s stage 1 response also confirmed that the managing agent would be arranging full decorative works to make good water damage to the properties once the leak had been confirmed as having been fixed. The landlord’s newsletter of 22 December 2022 explained that it would continue to monitor the block until there had been rainfall to enable it to be confident the matter was resolved. This was a reasonable approach to ensure resources were not wasted in redecorating properties only to have the damage immediately reoccur. Redecoration of the resident’s property was completed on 1 February 2023.
It is unfortunate that a leak then occurred in the same location in the resident’s property on 6 February 2023. However, it is evident that this was a separate leak originating from a different area of the roof – with the water following the same channels as the previous one.
The Ombudsman recognises that leaks – particularly those permeating throughout a large building such as here – can be extremely complex and difficult to trace. It would therefore be unreasonable to consider it a failure by the landlord and managing agent not to have identified this secondary leak previously. Particularly when no further evidence of water ingress was identified during the ‘monitoring period’ following the previous remedial works.
The landlord arranged multiple visits throughout February and March 2023 by both its staff and contactors to investigate this second leak. On 13 March 2023, after it identified this leak was also originating from the roof, it referred the matter back to the managing agent to resolve. An update to this effect was provided to residents just a few days later in its newsletter of 16 March 2023.
Following this, the managing agent arranged further work to the roof which was completed on 20 April 2023. As with the previous repair this was a reasonable timeframe for such work (which required 3 separate attendances by the managing agent’s contractors in order to strip the roof, pump away water and carry out repairs) which the landlord could not have realistically expedited.
In its stage 2 complaint response the landlord appropriately acknowledged the stress and inconvenience the resident had experienced and offered her a total of £200 compensation for this. This was a reasonable offer considering the landlord had not been directly responsible for repairing either leak, and that no service failure in its handling of the matter had been identified during its complaint investigations.
This Service appreciates that the resident may feel this sum does not adequately reflect the distress and inconvenience she experienced over the near 6 month period the leaks were ongoing. However, this distress and inconvenience was caused by the fact the leaks occurred, rather than the way they were handled by the landlord. Leaks are a common occurrence within large buildings such as blocks of flats and often undetectable in advance of water damage appearing, as appears to have been the case here.
Due to issues which the freeholder’s insurers and contractors had experienced with accessing the resident’s property, the landlord elected to ask for her to be offered a “settlement figure” by the insurers rather than having the insurer’s appointed contractor carry out remedial decorative work. This was a reasonable option and one which the resident was in agreement with.
In summary, the landlord carried out appropriate investigations into the leaks in the block, liaised effectively with the managing agent to ensure it fulfilled its repair obligations and kept residents regularly updated via its newsletter. Although the leaks took some time to trace and resolve this was not due to any service failure on the part of the landlord. Despite not being at fault, the landlord acknowledged the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident and acted reasonably in making a discretionary offer of compensation.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of:
1. Repairs to the communal door entry system.
2. Leaks into the property.

Reasons

There is no evidence of any delay in the replacement of the door entry system due to the landlord’s action, or lack thereof. The landlord appropriately liaised with the managing agent, communicated regular updates to residents and followed the section 20 consultation process.
The landlord carried out appropriate investigations into the leaks in the block, liaised effectively with the managing agent to ensure it fulfilled its repair obligations and kept residents regularly updated via its newsletter. Although the leaks took some time to trace and resolve this was not due to any service failure on the part of the landlord. Despite not being at fault, the landlord acknowledged the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident and acted reasonably in making a discretionary offer of compensation.