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

Notting Hill Genesis (NHG) (202204848)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202204848

Notting Hill Genesis (NHG)

16 November 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. A flood at the residents’ property and their damaged belongings.
    2. The associated complaint.

Background

  1. The residents are assured tenants of the landlord.
  2. On 12 July 2021, the residents’ property was flooded due to severe weather. The bottom level of the property was flooded, which included the kitchen, dining room and living room.
  3. On 9 December 2021, the residents submitted a complaint to the landlord. The residents stated that the landlord did not offer them storage, boxes, or help to move their items. They have stated as a direct result of this lack of assistance their home sustained substantial additional damage.
  4. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response to the residents on 20 December 2021. The landlord explained that it was not upholding the residents’ complaint. It explained that it had offered a range of financial support to the residents including food and laundry allowance, dehumidifier expenses, the cost of 2 hotel rooms, payments towards a new kitchen, and flooring. £500 towards stairway floor covering and other costs and a £400 payment from the landlord’s hardship fund.
  1. On 30 January 2022, the residents requested their complaint to be escalated to the next stage of the landlord’s complaints process. The residents stated that they did not accept the landlord’s findings. They explained that the landlord was not prepared to provide the necessary support to residents impacted by the flood. In addition, they felt they should be compensated by the landlord for the loss they incurred as a result of the landlord not offering them storage for their personal items.
  2. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response to the residents on 16 March 2022. It explained that it had learnt a lot from the flooding incident and how it could better respond to similar incidents in the future. The landlord offered the residents compensation to resolve the complaint. The compensation included £500 contribution to help cover the cost of the stairway carpet, £50 discretionary offer to cover the cost of taxis for the residents moving back home. £250 for distress and Inconvenience and £150 to recognise the landlord’s delay in issuing its stage 1 and 2 complaint responses.
  3. The residents remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and submitted their complaint to the Ombudsman. They stated that their desired outcome was to receive increased compensation from the landlord.

Assessment and findings

Scope of Investigation

  1. The residents stated as part of their complaint that their items were damaged due to the flood and due to the landlord not providing the residents with storage afterwards. It is outside the Ombudsman’s role to assess this aspect of the complaint because damage to items is normally considered as part of an insurance claim under the resident’s contents insurance or a landlord’s liability insurance. It is outside of the Ombudsman’s role to investigate insurance claims. An insurer is a separate organisation from the landlord and the Ombudsman cannot look at the actions of insurers, only at the actions of the landlord. 

Policies and procedures

  1. The landlord’s responsive repairs policy explains that an emergency repair is where there is an immediate danger to a person’s safety, major damage to the property, flooding, major electrical fault, heating failure (between October to March), hot water failure or if the property is not secure. The repairs policy also states that residents are responsible for insuring their own contents.
  2. The landlord’s decant policy states that in emergency situations, the landlord may require a tenant to move to alternative accommodation following an event such as a flood or fire making the property uninhabitable. The policy also explains that when considering whether to decant a tenant, an assessment of their vulnerabilities will be carried out on a case-by-case basis. It states that in circumstances where the move is for a short period of time (up to 10 working days), the landlord may offer the tenant a cash incentive to stay with friends or relatives. However, it states if a hotel or B&B accommodation is more convenient, the landlord will cover the cost of the accommodation and any agreed reasonable expenses.

The landlord’s response to a flood at the residents’ property and their damaged belongings.

  1. On 12 July 2021, the residents’ property was flooded, and the bottom level of the property was impacted by the flood. Following the flood, the residents submitted a complaint to the landlord in December 2021, explaining that they were unhappy that the landlord did not offer them storage boxes and help to move their items.
  2. The residents informed this service and the landlord that they did not have a contents insurance policy in place at the time the property was flooded. It is recognised that it must have been a difficult experience for the residents with some of their items being damaged due to the flood. However, in this case, the landlord would not be responsible for compensating the residents for their damaged items. The landlord would only be responsible for reimbursing the residents for their possessions if there is sufficient evidence to confirm the landlord was directly responsible for the residents’ possessions being damaged. In this case it is not clear from the evidence provided how much of the damage was caused by the flood itself and how much was caused by the lack of storage and boxes. The landlord was not responsible for the flood happening and therefore it would not be obliged to pay for damage directly caused by the flood.
  3. The residents also raised as part of their complaint that they were not offered storage boxes or help with moving their items. The landlord sent update emails to the residents and the other residents who were impacted by the flood. An update email was sent to the residents on 10 September 2021, which explained that the landlord would need to clear a select number of properties entirely and put all furniture in storage. The email explained that residents should contact their housing officer if they believed they require storage.
  4. In addition, an update email which was sent to the residents on 17 September 2021 also explained that residents should contact their housing officer if they needed any assistance with packing items due to vulnerability. There is no record that the residents asked for help packing their items or requested storage for their belongings. The residents told this service that they asked their housing officer for boxes when their kitchen was being removed, but the housing officer said there were no boxes left. This service does not doubt the resident’s account. However, we cannot confirm what was said as there are conflicting accounts of what happened and a lack of supporting evidence to support either account. Overall, from the information provided, the landlord acted appropriately in this instance as it offered the option of storage and support packing items in its update email sent in September 2021. It would have been the residents’ responsibility to follow up on this request within a reasonable timeframe and the Ombudsman has not seen sufficient evidence to show they did so.
  5. Following the flood, the landlord decanted (temporarily moved) the residents to a local hotel and provided the residents with a cash allowance for reasonable expenses, which included food and laundry expenses. The residents were decanted to the hotel until 4 January 2022. The landlord acted reasonably and in line with its decant policy when it moved the residents to a local hotel. Where accommodation is needed urgently, it is not always possible to arrange a self-contained property and a hotel is considered suitable for short term stays of up to a few weeks.
  6. The residents’ stated as part of their complaint they were unhappy that initially the landlord did not offer their pets accommodation. The residents had both a dog and a cat at the time the property was flooded. It is understandable that the residents were concerned for the welfare of their pets after the flood. However, it would not have been the landlord’s responsibility to provide accommodation for a resident’s pets. In addition, it is acknowledged that several other properties were impacted by the flood. Therefore, it is likely that it would have been difficult for the landlord to find local accommodation which would have been suitable for a family of five at the time and 2 pets, due to a number of households needing temporary accommodation at the same time. However, the landlord did arrange and pay for the resident’s dog to stay at a dog boarding kennel which cost the landlord £40 per night. Therefore, the Ombudsman believes the landlord responded reasonably regarding the residents’ request for their pets to be provided with accommodation. The Ombudsman notes that the residents were able to arrange for their cat to say with relatives, although it is acknowledged that this would have been inconvenient for them.
  7. The landlord also reimbursed the residents’ £7800 for a new kitchen installation which they requested and approximately £1769 to replace floor coverings in the basement. The Ombudsman believes the landlord acted in excess of its strict obligations in this instance. Normally a landlord would only been required to replace the kitchen units which were damaged due to the flood. In this case only the bottom units were damaged, therefore there was no requirement for the landlord to contribute to the complete new kitchen installation.
  8. The landlord acknowledged during its own internal complaints process that it offered the residents a lot of support. However, it did recognise that it did take around 4 weeks to set up a dedicated flood support team. The landlord explained that if an unforeseen major incident were to happen again in the future, it would ensure that it would act faster to ensure that dedicated resources are made available to impacted residents. The landlord offered the residents £500 to help cover the cost of the stairway carpet, £50 discretionary offer to cover the cost of the residents’ taxi they used to move back home. In addition, the landlord offered the residents £250 for the distress and inconvenience the residents experienced.
  9. The compensation offered to the resident was compliant with the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance, (published on our website) which sets out the Ombudsman’s approach to compensation. The remedies guidance suggests awards of £600 to £1000 where there has been a serious failure by the landlord which had a significant impact on the resident. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the compensation proportionately reflects the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s errors as set out above and amounts to reasonable redress in this case.

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 landlords should operate a 2 stage complaints process. 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.
  2. The residents submitted a complaint to the landlord on 9 December 2021 about the landlord’s response to a flood at the residents’ property and the support provided by the landlord. It then took approximately 11 working days for the landlord to provide its stage 1 complaint response, which was issued on 20 December 2021. The response time was 1 day late, therefore the response time by the landlord was reasonable in this instance.
  3. It took nearly 2 months for the landlord to provide its stage 2 complaint response. On 30 January 2022, the residents contacted the landlord and requested their complaint to be escalated to the next stage of the landlord’s complaints process. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 16 March 2022. The delay would have caused inconvenience for the residents as they were delayed in progressing the complaint to the Ombudsman because they needed to wait for the landlord’s final response before contacting our service.
  4. However, the landlord did acknowledge and apologise in its stage 2 response for its delay in responding to the resident’s complaint. The landlord offered the resident a total of £150 compensation to recognise its complaint handling errors. 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 impact of the delay on the resident, and it amounts to reasonable redress for this aspect of the complaint.

Determination (decision)

  1. 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, satisfactorily resolves the complaint about the landlord’s response to a flood at the residents’ property and their damaged belongings.
  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, satisfactorily resolves the complaint about the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord pays the resident its original offer made in its stage 2 response of £950 in compensation if it has not already done so. The Ombudsman’s finding that there was reasonable redress by the landlord in this case is based on the understanding that this compensation will be paid.