Notting Hill Genesis (NHG) (202201499)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202201499

Notting Hill Genesis

9 May 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:
   1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a faulty intercom system and concerns about the procedure for visitor’s access to his property
   2. The landlord’s complaint handling

Background

2. The resident holds an assured tenancy with the landlord in a two-bedroom second-floor flat. The resident has a disability and has regular visitors, including carers and pharmacies that need access to his property.
3. The resident’s property is a flat that is owned and managed by the landlord. However, the property is within a block for which the landlord is not the freeholder. The freeholder employs a managing agent for the building who looks after the day-to-day management of the property, including the employment of a concierge service.
4. On 31 May 2022 the resident emailed the managing agent. He said that the intercom for both entries had been switched off. He said that every few weeks he complains about the intercom. He said both intercoms do not work and that when visitors buzz for entry, he cannot hear anything. He asked the managing agent for information on how visitors can access his property and subsequently asked the landlord to log a stage one complaint. The landlord responded to the resident the same day and arranged an appointment with the resident for an engineer to inspect the intercom.
5. On the 1 June 2022 the landlord emailed the resident. It said that the contractor had attended that day and reset the system. It said that the contractor had tested various flats including his and that everything was in working order. The landlord asked the resident if the intercom was now working. The resident said that the managing agent had not fixed the main entry intercom.
6. On 6 June 2022 the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint. It said that after the contractors visit the system had been reset, and that the whole block, including his flat, had been left in working order.
7. On 15 June 2022 the landlord responded to the resident’s complaint at stage one of its complaints process. The landlord did not uphold the complaint. In summary the response said:
   1. The contractor had reset the system and tested various flats, including his and that everything was in working order.
   2. That in the event of intercom system failure all residents were notified through ‘locale’ message system which sent information and updates directly to the resident’s email.
   3. The 24-hour concierge service was available to let visitors in, when requested.
8. On 17 June 2022 the resident asked the landlord to escalate his complaint to stage two of the landlord’s complaints process. He asked the landlord why the engineer had not fixed the first entry intercom. He said that he had not been provided with evidence that the intercom had been fixed. He asked why the engineer had not pressed the first entry intercom to his flat. He asked what the procedure was for visitor’s access when the intercom was out of order. He said that he was unaware that the concierge was open 24 hours a day seven days a week and asked how they would help with visitor’s access. He also said that the landlord had refused to log his complaint, that it had refused to respond by its deadline, and had refused to provide him with a hardcopy of its stage one response.
9. On 15 July 2022 the landlord issued its final response. It did not uphold the complaint. In summary the response said:
   1. There was no evidence that the intercom system was turned off for his property.
   2. The contractor had attended 24 hours after the report and had reset the system and tested various flats including his, and that all was ok in working order. The engineer could find no fault with the intercom system and no follow-on works were required.
   3. In the event the intercom was not working, visitors would need to go to the front of the building where the concierge was located. The concierge could then grant access to any visitors.
   4. If nobody was at reception the visitor could call the mobile phone and the concierge would return to the desk and let them in.
   5. If the visitor was unable to use the mobile phone, they could knock on the door to gain attention and the concierge would let them in.
   6. The concierge could see the main door from their desk and the cameras also pick up the main door. The concierge could give access to visitors to the core of the building.
   7. The managing agent did not receive any other reports from residents that the intercom system was not working.
10. In the resident’s complaint to the Ombudsman, he said that the landlord had refused to log his complaint. He said that the intercom was not working on his side of the block. He said that the engineer should have ‘buzzed’ his flat from the first main entrance. He said that the landlord was aware that he had regular visitors that needed access to his property, and that the concierge should allow visitors access to his block without him having to let them in. He said that it is not always convenient for visitors to have to wait for permission from him. He said that although the landlord has said visitors don’t need permission, this was not the case in practice.

Assessment and findings

Policies and procedures

11. The landlord’s repair policy states ‘For properties for which the responsibility to carry out the repair does not lie with either the resident nor [the landlord], staff will always pass on the details of said repair to the relevant party and liaise to ensure its satisfactory completion’.
12. The landlord’s complaints procedure was a two-stage process, excluding an informal stage. The landlord was to respond to the resident within 10 days of their complaint. If the resident requested the complaint be escalated to the second and final stage, the timescale for a review the complaint would be within 20 days of the resident’s request.

The landlord’s handling of reports of a faulty intercom system and concerns about the procedure for visitor’s access

13. When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its Dispute Resolution Principles. These are high level good practice guidance developed from the Ombudsman’s experience of resolving disputes, for use by everyone involved in the complaints process. There are only three principles driving effective dispute resolution:
    1. Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes;
    2. put things right, and;
    3. learn from outcomes.
14. The Ombudsman must first consider whether a failing on the part of the landlord occurred, and if so, whether this led to any adverse affect or detriment to the resident. If it is found that a failing did lead to an adverse affect, the investigation will then consider whether the landlord has taken enough action to ‘put things right’ and ‘learn from outcomes’.
15. The evidence showed that the managing agent attended to the intercom within 24 hours of the resident reporting the issue. While the building was managed by a managing agent employed by a third party, the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to make reasonable efforts to ensure that a service was provided, as set out in the landlord’s repair policy. The landlord acted reasonably in liaising with the managing agent and ascertaining in a short space of time what action it had taken to resolve the matter. It also responded promptly and addressed the resident’s query.
16. The managing agent informed the landlord that it had reset the whole system including the resident’s flat, and the landlord advised the resident of this. Although the landlord should have clarified with the managing agent if it had tested both intercoms, it was reasonable for the landlord to conclude that the managing agent had taken appropriate steps to resolve the matter, based on the information that was provided to it by the managing agent. This is information that was also shared with the resident.
17. There was no evidence that the intercom had been turned off and the landlord considered whether there had been other complaints about the same issue, and said that there had not been any. The landlord was entitled to accept the managing agent’s explanation on what actions it had taken to investigate and resolve the matter. Overall, the landlord handled the resident’s reports about the intercom fairly and reasonably.
18. It is understandable that the resident would have concerns about visitor’s access to his property, given his disabilities. However, the landlord’s response to his concerns was reasonable. The landlord provided advice to the resident on how visitors could access the building if the intercom systems were not working. There was no set procedure for visitor’s access in these circumstances, but the landlord’s advice was practical, and it showed that it had liaised with the managing agent about this particular concern. Overall, the advice provided by the landlord was fair and proportionate.
19. There was some dispute about whether visitors need permission from the resident before accessing his block, therefore it would be reasonable for the landlord to clarify this with the managing agent. This is set out in the recommendations below.

 The landlord’s complaint handling

20. In the resident’s complaint to the Ombudsman, he said that the landlord had refused to log his complaint. However, there was no evidence of this. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint within five working days and responded at both stages of its complaints process within its set timescales. The landlord also provided evidence to the Ombudsman that it had posted a hard copy of its stage one response to the resident.
21. The landlord demonstrated that it considered the resident’s reports and complaints and provided a response to each issue. The landlord responded to the resident’s complaints with explanations of its decisions and actions and within its policy timescales.

Determination

22. In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of reports of a faulty intercom system and concerns about the procedure for visitor’s access.
23. In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.

Recommendations

24. It is recommended that the landlord clarifies with the managing agent whether permission is required from the resident for visitors to access his block. Confirmation of the outcome should be provided in writing to the resident.