Call for Evidence on housing maintenance now open! Respond by 25 October 2024. Submit evidence online.

Notting Hill Genesis (NHG) (202202360)

Back to Top

Review Letter comp

 

A blue and grey text Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202202360

Notting Hill Genesis

24 August 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 landlord’s handling of repairs to a front garden wall.

2.     The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

3.     The resident is the shared owner of a one-bedroom flat in a street property. The lease was originally granted by another landlord and refers to a superior landlord and lease. No details have been provided.

4.     The property is split into four flats, with the resident’s home situated on the first floor. The front entrance of the property included a walled garden area. It is this wall that is the subject of the complaint.

5.     On 19 January 2021 the resident contacted the landlord and sent photographs of the condition of the wall. She expressed her fears that the wall might fall down if left unattended and requested an urgent repair.

6.     The landlord attended with its contractor on 16 February 2021. The contractor confirmed that the wall was safe but that the render had blown and needed to be made good. It asked that an asbestos check be undertaken pending removal of the render. This information was not provided to the resident who submitted a complaint regarding the lack of action on 10 March 2021.

7.     The landlord’s ‘quick fix’ response confirmed that an asbestos sample and visit would be carried out on 16 March 2021. The landlord stated that its contractor would provide its update to the resident by the end of the following week and apologised that the information had not been provided earlier. The landlord offered the resident £50 compensation as part of its ‘quick fix’.

8.     As the condition of the wall remained the same the resident contacted the landlord again on 11 June 2021 and asked that her complaint to be escalated to stage two of the complaints process. The landlord explained that the matter had been dealt with under its ‘quick fix’ process and it would now be escalated to stage one of the complaints procedure. The landlord advised that the resident should receive the asbestos report within ten working days. The resident also requested details of the scope of the works.

9.     A response to the complaint at stage one of the complaints process was sent on 23 June 2021. This explained how the delays had arisen, noted that the condition of the wall had deteriorated and that the asbestos report should have been expedited by now. The landlord accepted that there had been a service failure and that the resident had had to chase for a response. It apologised and offered the resident £250 for distress and inconvenience caused. The landlord confirmed that its internal asbestos team would fast track the assessment and would report back within 3-4 working days. It also agreed that the landlord would cover the costs of this testing rather than charging for it under the service charge.

10. On 21 July 2021, the resident contacted the landlord again and asked if the asbestos report was available. The landlord advised that she should receive the report by 26 July 2021. No report had been provided by 9 August 2021 when the resident contacted the landlord again.

11. An asbestos survey took place on 3rd August 2021. This established that there was no asbestos present in the external front garden wall. The landlord confirmed this to the resident on 11 August 2021 and confirmed it was inspecting the wall to obtain quotes for the works. Should these exceed £750, the landlord would need to complete the section 20 consultation process.

12. The resident contacted the landlord on 27 October 2021 and asked that the complaint be escalated as she had not received any update or estimate for the repair.

13. The landlord responded on the same day and apologised that no update had been provided. It explained that it had taken a while for its surveyors to pick up the referral due to demand for its services. Its surveyor had attended on 20 October 2021 and found that the bamboo planted in the garden area was causing the issue to the render and would need to be removed. The plan was to contact the leaseholder reported to have planted the bamboo and ask that it be removed. The ground would then need to settle for approximately four months. Quotes would be obtained for the repair.

14. The relevant leaseholder denied planting the bamboo and the landlord therefore arranged for the bamboo to be removed, having first obtained two quotes for the works. The resident was unhappy that this would be charged to the service charge account when she had not planted the bamboo. She requested her complaint be escalated on 28 October 2021 as she was dissatisfied with the way the wall repairs were being managed.

15. The landlord confirmed that it could not escalate the complaint as it was out of time. Its policy requires that complaints be escalated within twenty working days of the stage one decision, which was dated 23 June 2021. The landlord contacted the resident and tried to answer her outstanding questions regarding the works.

16. The bamboo was removed on 7 November 2021 at a cost of £225 plus VAT which would be recovered via the service charge. The landlord had issued its Notice of Intention to undertake the works, therefore once the ground had settled and quotes received the landlord would proceed with the next steps in the s.20 consultation process.

17. The resident made a further complaint on 22 November 2021 as she believed a pattern had developed where the landlord only responded to her queries when she said she was making a complaint. She believed that in allowing the landlord more time to resolve the matter, she had been unfairly treated. In addition, she asked the landlord a number of questions.

18. The landlord responded to the complaint and the additional questions by 7 December 2021 as follows:

  1. It confirmed that the delay in undertaking the works had been acknowledged and compensation awarded for the distress and inconvenience caused. An explanation had been given as to why the works could not commence immediately.
  2. The landlord confirmed that the information provided regarding the wall and the impact of the bamboo was correct. Its surveyor had found that the wall itself was structurally sound however the bamboo had caused damage to the render resulting in the cracking. The bamboo was removed as soon as possible by the landlord in an attempt to move the works forward.
  3. If residents wished the landlord to plant and maintain the garden this would result in a service charge. Residents were asked to contact the landlord if this was something that residents wanted to take forward. In the interim, the landlord would not be undertaking any planting in the garden.
  4. Whether the works were charged to the sinking fund was reviewed as part of the end of year service charge accounts. The landlord confirmed that it would consider using the sinking fund balance to cover the cost of the repairs to the front wall, but this would be dependent on the cost of the repairs being over the £750 threshold.

19. The landlord’s final response was issued on 7 February 2022. This set out the history and provided answers to the resident’s questions again. It confirmed that the s20 process was underway and that once quotes were received, the contractor offering the best value for money would be appointed. It apologised that the works had taken so long and offered further compensation of £200 to acknowledge that it had not always provided timely updates and the repair to the render remained outstanding. This brought the total amount of compensation awarded to the resident to £500.

Assessment and findings

Garden wall

20. The lease sets out the provisions for the service charge and sinking fund works. This includes an obligation on the resident to pay all outgoings in relation to the property and/or to pay the landlord on demand a fair proportion of any assessment which relates to the property. It sets out how the landlord will administer the service charge account and confirms that the landlord will use all reasonable endeavours to ensure that services are provided in accordance with the superior lease.

21. The works covered by the sinking fund are:

  1. Major repairs to the structure, roof, and foundations of the building.
  2. Exterior decoration and repairs to external parts.
  3. Refurbishment of common parts (walls are included in the definition of common parts).
  4. Works which in the landlord’s reasonable opinion or in the reasonable opinion of the Superior Landlord are proper items for the sinking fund expenditure in the interest of good estate management.

22. The landlord was therefore entitled to charge for the services provided and was allowed to recover payment for the works through the sinking fund. The lease goes further, and states “if, and only if, the sums standing to the credit of the sinking fund are insufficient to meet the cost of the sinking fund works we may recover the balances of the costs through the service charge.” The information provided to the resident that this was dependent upon the level of the costs would appear inaccurate, given the terms of the lease.

23. There were clearly delays in the landlord undertaking the works and service failures in relation to its communication with the resident. The resident is correct that there is a pattern of silence until she chases for an update or submits further complaints.

24. While the landlord provided an apology and offered compensation for its past failings, the landlord is still delaying and has not taken reasonable actions to ensure the repairs are completed within a reasonable timeframe, this is particularly considering the fact that this issue has been ongoing for over 2 years since January 2021.

25. The landlord’s stage two response to the second complaint dated February 2022 outlined that it did not envisage any further delays as the two main issues that prevented the repairs from being carried out (the asbestos report and the removal of the bamboo) had been completed. Furthermore, it also explained that the section 20 consultation process had already begun and the resident’s PMO was proactively working on obtaining quotes for the repairs from its contractors; however, the consultation has not taken place and the issue remains unresolved over one year later according to the evidence submitted. As the delay has been ongoing for so long, it is reasonable to conclude that the condition of the wall would have deteriorated overtime, and this has caused more distress to the resident.

26. Moreover, the landlord’s strict time limits regarding the escalation of a complaint further compounded the issue. As an example, the resident was advised that the ground needed to settle for a period of approximately four months. There was already a complaint regarding the landlord’s handling of the works, and should her dissatisfaction continue when the works commenced the resident would be automatically barred from escalating the complaint due the amount of time that has passed. This was potentially unfair as the resident had to repeat her concerns at stage one before she could access the final review. It is noted that the landlord considered all the issues raised in the stage one complaints in its final review, but it failed to consider whether its process caused any detriment.

27. With everything being considered above, this Service finds that there was maladministration in the landlord’s handing of the repairs to the garden wall. This Service has considered the continued delay of over 2 years in completing the works, the landlord’s poor communication and consistent missed timescales, and the impact upon the resident as this delay has caused them distress and inconvenience. A detailed order has been included below requesting that the landlord send out the quotations for consultation, and then completes all of the repairs within a reasonable timeframe.

Complaint handling

28. The resident first raised their complaint on 10 March 2021, the landlord provided a quick fix response on 11 March 2021. The landlord confirmed that an asbestos sample and visit would be carried out on 16 March 2021, and its contractors would provide an update to the resident by the end of the following week. As the landlord failed to meet this deadline and the condition of the wall remained the same, the resident contacted the landlord again on 11 June 2021 and requested that their complaint be escalated to stage two. The landlord explained that the matter had been dealt with under its ‘quick fix’ process and the complaint would be escalated to stage one of its complaints procedure. The landlord provided a stage one response on 23 June 2021.

29. When considering all of the circumstances, this Service does not consider the landlord’s actions to be reasonable. The landlord’s complaints policy states that it will resolve a complaint via the quick fix process, instead of a formal process, if the complaint can be resolved quickly; usually within 48 hours. As the landlord failed to resolve the complaint within the timeframe of the quick fix process, it should have sent a formal stage one response to the resident within 10 working days as its policy outlines, but it failed to do this. Under the circumstances, there was an unreasonable delay of 6 weeks in issuing the stage one response.

30. Following the stage one response, the resident requested that their complaint be escalated to stage two on 28 October 2021. The landlord responded on 2 November 2021 and confirmed that it could not escalate the complaint as it was out of time. It stated that its policy required that complaints be escalated within 20 working days of the stage one decision. This Service does not consider the landlord’s response to be reasonable when considering the evidence. When the landlord issued its stage one response in June 2021, it acknowledged its delays in completing the asbestos assessment, it then confirmed that its internal asbestos team would fast track the assessment and would report back within 3-4 working days, with a view to sharing the report findings with the resident by the middle of the following week. The landlord failed to meet this timeframe and only provided an update to the resident on 11 August 2021 after completing the survey on 3 August 2021.

31. During the update, the landlord explained that it was inspecting the wall and would obtain quotes for the works. As the landlord failed to provide an update to the resident in relation to the quotes, the resident requested an escalation to stage two. It is evident that the delay in the resident escalating the complaint was mainly caused by the landlord’s delay in progressing the assessment and providing updates to the resident in relation to the quotes. It is unreasonable that the landlord showed a lack of understanding as it failed to consider how its actions contributed to the delay, as well as the fact that it did not meet any of the timescales it had set and therefore should have been more considerate. Since the complaint was not escalated, this caused a further delay in the complaint being brought to this Service.

32. Following this, the evidence shows a new stage one complaint was raised by the resident in November 2021. The landlord provided a stage one response on 7 December 2021. The resident requested an escalation of this complaint on 8 December 2021, the landlord further delayed for 2 months and provided a stage two response on 7 February 2022. Having reviewed all of the evidence, this Service considers that there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint. This Service has considered the delayed responses to the resident when a complaint was raised, the lack of communication and updates provided when the landlord confirmed it would carry out a task, the failure to escalate the first complaint to stage two, the extent to which the resident had to chase the landlord for information and updates, and the overall impact the delay had on the resident.

33. As such, it is proportionate and reasonable that the landlord makes a payment of £350 to the resident in consideration of the failings identified. The Ombudsman is entitled to make its own determination on the level of compensation based on its assessment of the impact of the landlord’s failures when dealing with issues a resident has raised. When considering this impact, the Ombudsman is not limited to a landlord’s compensation policy. Instead, it focuses on what it deems fair and reasonable in the circumstances of the case.

Determination (decision)

34. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of repairs to a front garden wall.

35. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaints.

Orders

36. The landlord is ordered to, within four weeks of the date of the report:

  1. Pay the resident compensation of £850. This amount is inclusive of the £500 already offered, which can be deducted from the total amount if already paid, and is broken down as follows:

–          £500 for the failings identified in relation to the landlord’s handling of repairs to a front garden wall.

–          £350 to recognise the landlord’s poor complaint handling.

37. Send quotes from contractors to all residents for consultation, allow a period of 30 days for residents to raise concerns or issues.

38. Upon completion of the consultation, repairs should then be booked within 6 weeks if the landlord has not done so already. Repairs should be completed in accordance with the report from the structural engineer regarding the boundary wall and the recommendations on what works are required to complete the repairs.

39. Reviews the provisions of the lease and ensures that the costs of any works to the wall are recovered in accordance with its terms, namely using the sinking fund to cover the costs of the repairs.

40. Considers whether its strict adherence to its complaint times causes detriment and unnecessary delay to its residents when next reviewing its complaints process.

41. Evidence of compliance to be provided to this Service by the same date as listed above.