Notting Hill Genesis (NHG) (202205755)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202205755

Notting Hill Genesis (NHG)

27 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

The complaint concerns the landlord’s handling of:
1. Repairs to the property following flooding.
2. Flood payments made to the resident.
3. Removal of bathroom fittings.
4. The subsequent complaint.
5. Access to undertake fire and smoke alarm checks.

Jurisdiction

What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to this service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated. Paragraph 42a of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme sets out that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which are made prior to having exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure.
The resident has complained to the Ombudsman about the landlord’s handling of access in relation to a fire and smoke alarm in November 2022. These events had not been considered by the landlord under its complaints process as part of this complaint. This complaint is therefore outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction and has not formed part of this investigation.

Background and summary of events

The resident is the assured tenant of a one-bedroom basement flat where she has lived since April 1990. On 12 July 2021 the property was affected by flash flooding causing damage to the flooring and furnishings with damp and mould occurring as the property dried out. The family had to move out while the property dried out and works were undertaken to rectify the damage initially staying with friends before moving into temporary accommodation. These works were still outstanding at the end of the complaints process. The resident has explained that both she and her partner are in their 60s and that she is disabled.
The property was one of 300+ owned by the landlord that were damaged by flash flooding. The landlord set up a flood team to deal with these properties. Newsletters were sent to affected residents, the first of which was dated 6 August 2021. This set out that all properties would be surveyed, and a works specification drawn up. It explained that for many there would be a period of drying out before any work could begin and recognised the inconvenience and distress caused to households. It offered a number of payments, dependent upon individual circumstances. Relevant to the resident were daily payments of £50 for those staying with family and friends, along with £10 per week to cover the costs of using a dehumidifier.
The landlord contacted the resident in August 2021 to arrange an asbestos survey before any works commenced. The resident refused access, initially as she believed one had been recently completed and should still be valid.
The landlord continued to send its flood newsletters which were sent on 3 10, 24 September, 1 October, 21 December 2021 and 3 May 2022. These gave general updates on the type of works, access arrangements etc and by October confirmed that from then on, the majority of communication would be on an individual property basis, rather than to all.
By October 2021 the resident refused access for the asbestos survey until the landlord had rectified a leak on the back wall from a downpipe. The landlord has explained that this repair was not part of its flood work, that it had no record of a recent asbestos survey and could not send workmen in to undertake repairs without one. On 21 October 2021 an agreement was reached with the resident for the asbestos survey to go ahead.
The resident and her partner continued to live elsewhere throughout this period, however in December the flood payments made to her were reduced to just payment for use of the dehumidifier. The landlord explained that this was because the accounts team had been advised that the family were back home. The resident complained about this to the landlord and explained that as no work had been undertaken it was not possible for her to move home and they were still living elsewhere.
The resident requested that her complaint be escalated to stage two on 31 December 2021. She listed the following areas of complaint:
1. That almost 6 months after the flood no works had taken place at her home. The drain was still blocked, the back door had rotted posing a security risk, and the walls, floors, and ceilings were all severely water damaged with black mould appearing.
2. That there were a number of outstanding repairs at the property that were contributing to the problems, including the leaking down pipe.
3. That despite the conditions at the property, the payment team believed she had moved back, and payments had been stopped.
4. That there were difficulties in contacting staff due to staff turnaround and the number of people involved.
The landlord responded on 4 January 2022 and advised it had no record of any formal complaint. It explained that the payment issue had been dealt with by its business services team, rather than being dealt with as a complaint. It apologised for this and confirmed it would log the complaint of 31 December at stage one and send its response by 14 January 2022.
The stage one response was sent on 17 January 2022. This explained that the flash floods had affected a large number of properties and placed a large demand on landlord’s repairs. It also noted that the resident’s Housing Officer was on long term leave when the floods occurred.
In relation to the works at the property, the letter noted that there had been delays due to the resident’s refusal of the asbestos survey, which, it noted, was now complete. It focused on the steps that needed to be taken to get the works started and advised the resident that the first action would be for her to remove her personal items as the flat needed to be clear to allow new flooring to be laid. The surveyor would be asked to include the repair/renewal of the back door in his updated scope of works. No mention was made of the leaking downpipe or blocked drain.
The landlord requested details of where the resident was staying and confirmed that the flood payments would be reinstated and backdated once received. It also asked whether the resident wanted to accept the offer of alternative accommodation that had been made. It offered £150 compensation in recognition that the process had taken a long time and that the error in payment would have caused inconvenience.
There are email exchanges relating to the viewing of an alternative property in January 2022, the arrangements for this letting have not been shared with this Service, nor is it known if the offer was accepted. Whatever the outcome, the resident was clearly expecting to be able to return to her original tenancy once the repairs were completed.
Contact was made regarding moving the resident’s belongings into storage and she responded to the landlord on 11 February 2022 asking for more information on the storage arrangements, the schedule of works and pointed out that she was still waiting to be provided with the samples to allow her to choose the new flooring. When no information was forthcoming, the resident contacted the landlord again and advised that she was contacting Environmental Health to look at the property and wished to escalate her complaint to stage two.
The landlord got in touch with the resident on 22 February 2022, it reiterated some of the offers made in its stage one response. It appears that the flood payments had not been reinstated by this date and it agreed to arrange for a backdated payment. It also confirmed that a further inspection would take place and the scope of work would be sent following this. The surveyor would also be asked to ensure that the samples were made available and would identify what items needed to go into storage. Once the landlord had this information it would plan for a storage company to attend and help the resident pack. As a result of this second offer, the resident decided not to pursue the stage two complaint at this time.
The surveyor confirmed on 24 February 2022 that the personal and small items at the flat needed to be removed and that work could not start until this was done. However, on 2 March 2022 the resident confirmed that she would not consent to the items being put in storage until she had been provided with the samples of flooring and made her choices. The samples were shown to the resident on 11 March and choices made. On the 14 March 2022 the resident informed the landlord that she wanted to receive the promised scope of works before she removed the items. Once she had received this, she would need 2 weeks to pack up the items with help from the storage company. The scope of work was sent to the resident, along with confirmation of her choices and the arrangements for storage on 25 March 2022.
There followed a series of questions and answers relating to the works and security of the resident’s belongings. A contractor was instructed to install locks on the internal doors and to commence work, however he was unable to obtain access and contacted the landlord for assistance on 12 May 2022. The resident was contacted and was adamant that she had not contributed to the delays.

Complaint two

It is not clear when access was obtained however work was underway by 9 June 2022 when the resident contacted the landlord to complain as she had visited the property and found that the bathroom fittings had been removed without her knowledge or agreement.
The contractor apologised and explained that the works were within his instructions. He believed that the resident had been aware as he had asked her if she wanted the layout of the bathroom to be changed. The complaint was handed to the landlord and the contractor stopped work.
The landlord reviewed its paperwork and an internal email dated 21 June 2022 indicated that checks had been made and the previous surveyor had agreed that no works would be carried out to the kitchen or bathroom. The resident requested permission to instruct a firm of her choosing to complete the works. This request was refused by the landlord who arranged an appointment to inspect the property on 4 July 2022. A new schedule of works was drawn up and shared with the resident on 5 July 2022 detailing twelve items of work. The resident was also asked whether she wanted the kitchen replaced as the landlord believed this to be needed.
The resident was unhappy with the change in the proposed works and explained in her email of 5 July 2022 that she believed she was being railroaded into making changes that she did not want. She had thought the inspection had related to her complaint rather than to identify new works. She was unhappy that no response had been sent to her and that the landlord did not appear to have records of its previous visits. She submitted a further complaint about the new surveyor as she believed she had been deliberately misled and that there was an agenda to force her to change her home. When the surveyor subsequently contacted the resident to book in the first of the works, he recorded that she refused the works pending the outcome of the complaint.
The landlord responded to this complaint at stage one on 17 July 2022. This included an apology for the length of time it was taking to remedy the flood damage and offered £250 compensation for the delay. It explained that the original schedule of works mainly addressed the decorative finishes and did not include works that were considered necessary to ensure that the property met the landlord’s lettable standards and current building regulations. It apologised that the works to the bathroom had commenced without consultation. Details of the updated schedule of works was provided, which included the replacement of the bathroom suite and kitchen. The landlord offered a further £250 compensation for the stress and inconvenience caused to the resident.
The resident was dissatisfied with the response and advised the landlord that she was intending to request that the matter be escalated by 12 June 2022 (sic). This resulted in some confusion as the landlord interpreted her comment to mean she was expecting a complaint response by the 12 August 2022 which it disputed. This, in turn, exacerbated the resident’s belief that the landlord was trying to prevent her from escalating the complaint as was addressed in the actual escalation request dated 10 August 2022.
The complaint was reviewed by the landlord’s independent reviewer and a final response was sent on 23 August 2022. This reviewed the earlier responses and repeated the explanations for the delays in undertaking works: the volume of properties affected, staff changes, setting up of flood team and access difficulties. The offers made in relation to compensation for the delays and inconvenience were also repeated. In relation to the bathroom, the landlord apologised that the bathroom works were commenced without consultation and again listed out the 11 items of work detailed in the revised schedule of works. The letter added a further £50 compensation for delays in issuing complaint responses, bringing the total compensation to £550.

Assessment and findings

Repairs to the property following flooding

The landlord has explained that there were initial delays due to the number of properties effected by the flash flooding, that the property needed to dry out before work could commence, that there had been a number of staff changes and that accessing the property was sometimes difficult. It has accepted that it has taken too long to remedy the damage and to reinstate the property and that this will have caused inconvenience and distress to the resident. To address this, it offered flood payments to cover expenses, including the use of a dehumidifier. In January 2022 it made an offer of alternative accommodation and offered £500 compensation for the delays and inconvenience caused in its complaint response.
It is not clear from the evidence provided whether the works have been completed. They were still outstanding at the date of the final complaint response in August 2022, some 14 months after the flood occurred.
During this period, there were times when the resident would not allow access or would only provide access if specific conditions were met. There was limited evidence of the landlord taking action to manage this behaviour, either by improving its communication and engagement or by taking steps to ensure that the work could go ahead.
Given that the landlord was using rental income from other residents to provide flood payments to effected residents whilst the work was outstanding, it was essential that it ensured that its management of the works was time limited and that getting people back into their homes was a priority. It was of concern that the landlord failed to minimise this expense by ensuring the property was repaired in a timely fashion.
The resident also made it clear that she would not engage with storage arrangements (necessary before any works could commence) until samples, and later a schedule of work had been provided. Whilst the resident is obliged to provide access as part of the obligations of her tenancy, the landlord’s poor communication and record keeping contributed to these delays. The resident could only obtain the promised information by withholding her participation. It is also noted that no works appear to have taken place between November 2021 – March or April – May 2022 when access was not being withheld.
Some of the repairs needed were deemed not to relate to the flooding (the leaking down pipe and the blocked drain). Whilst that may be accurate these were still repairs that fell within the landlord’s repairing responsibilities and the resident was entitled to expect these to be remedied. It is of concern that the drains at the property remained blocked which risked a repeat of the problem should there be further storms, and the damp conditions at the property were likely to continue if there was water leaking down the walls. There is a lack of detail as to how these items were to be addressed and again this highlights the landlord’s poor communication, the failure of its overall repairs service and its failure to get a proper handle on the scale of the issues that needed to be resolved.
Overall, the landlord’s management of the situation was poor. It provided contradictory information to the resident, she continually had to chase for information and had to force the landlord to deliver promised actions by refusing access. The landlord failed to proactively manage the situation at her home, both in relation to the repairs and the difficulties it experienced with the resident and storage and access arrangements. This resulted in significant delays and as a result the resident’s relationship with the landlord deteriorated. The landlord’s offer of compensation fails to recognise the volume of service failures and does not provide sufficient redress to put things right.
In all the circumstances, the Ombudsman has determined severe maladministration on this aspect of the case. It is not clear whether the repair issues have been resolved at the time of this investigation. In any case, the delays to progress the case have been excessive and unreasonable with poor communication and record keeping at the centre of the landlord’s overall failures. In reaching this decision, the Ombudsman has also taken into consideration the household vulnerability, which enhances the need for a landlord to ensure that it provides essential services in a prompt and effective manner.
To remedy this complaint the landlord has been ordered to arrange for a senior officer to attend the property, apologise to the resident in person and to discuss with her all outstanding repair issues investigated here. Following this meeting, it is required that the landlord will follow up with details of what was discussed, together with a schedule of any agreed works. A significant compensation order has also been made, reflecting the Ombudsman’s consideration of cases involving significant failure of service over a protracted period.

Flood payments made to the resident

The landlord’s flood payment schedule sets out the following payments:
1. Food £20 per person per day – to be issued for tenants in hotels where meals are not covered, or whose food storage/cooking facilities have been impacted by the floods.
2. Staying with friends or family £50 per household, per day – This payment is to help cover your costs including food.
3. Laundry expenses £10 per week single person. £20 per week for a family – For tenants without washing facilities.
4. Electricity expenses for dehumidifiers £10 per household, per week – This allowance is only available for residents who have been given a dehumidifier.
Internal emails between the landlord’s staff stated that the resident was receiving £360 per week. No evidence has been provided to show the length of time that payments were made to the resident. However, in December 2021 the landlord incorrectly reduced the payment on the belief that the resident had moved back home. This was despite no works having taken place at the property.
The initial stage one response dated 17 January 2022 recognised that this was an oversight. It requested that details were provided as to where the resident was currently living and confirmed that payments would then be backdated. However, an email to the resident dated 22 February 2022 indicated that the payments had not been reinstated over a month later.
Again, there is evidence of poor management by the landlord and poor record keeping. No evidence has been provided to justify the initial change that reduced the payment for the resident. This was a significant reduction and could have caused the resident significant difficulties. The promised action to put things right failed to happen as set out in the landlord’s complaint response, requiring further chasing from the resident. The resident was not treated fairly, and the landlord has not taken sufficient action to put things rights.
Compensation was offered by the landlord on this aspect of the case (included within the £150 compensation offer in January 2022). Whilst it was appropriate to acknowledge its failures by way of a financial remedy, the amount offered was not proportionate to the detriment experienced and it failed to recognise a period of further delay in reinstating the payments. By consequence a determination of service failure has been identified here, with an additional payment of compensation ordered.

Removal of bathroom fittings

It was not unreasonable of the landlord to wish to remove and replace the bathroom suite. This would allow it to change the ACM floor tiles whilst the flat was vacant. Similarly, it was understandable that the landlord would wish to ensure that the works to the flat met its lettable standards and the current building regulations. It is of concern that its original schedule of work was deficient in this regard.
It is also of concern that a contractor was engaged to undertake this work when this item was not present on the schedule of works prepared by the landlord’s surveyor. There is no evidence that the landlord investigated how this came about within its handling of the complaint. This is a serious service failure, as without knowing how this issue arose, the landlord cannot put steps in place to prevent recurrence.
In addition, the landlord’s communication with the resident regarding the necessity for this work, and the new items that were listed in the updated schedule of work, was extremely poor. The resident was in contact with the original surveyor up to May 2022 (the bath was removed on 9 June 2022). There was no indication that the works schedule had been changed to include the removal of the bathroom suite, yet this is precisely what happened one month later.
The landlord had been made aware that the resident was concerned as to what works were planned, given that she had withheld consent for asbestos removal, pending the provision of the original schedule of works. There is no evidence to show that the resident was properly advised that the work to remove the bathroom suite would take place or that she agreed to the work going ahead. The landlord’s record keeping and communication in this regard was extremely poor, and it has failed to fully recognise this within its complaint response.
The landlord apologised and offered a further £250 in compensation for this aspect of the case in its stage one complaint response of July 2022. As with earlier aspects of the complaint, the Ombudsman does not consider the landlord’s offer of remedy to have gone far enough to put things right. The landlord failed to act in a customer focussed manner throughout and its failure to communicate with her over its plans to alter her property in a significant way contributed to further deterioration in the landlord/tenant relationship. A determination of maladministration has been made here, together with an order to pay further compensation.

Complaint handling.

When considering how a landlord has responded to a complaint, the Ombudsman considers not just what has gone wrong, but also what the landlord has done to put things right in response to a complaint. This includes the steps the landlord has taken to address the shortcoming and prevent a reoccurrence, as well as any compensation offered.
The resident believed she had made a formal complaint in December 2021 and sought to escalate this on 31 December 2021. The landlord has no record of this complaint, although an internal email dated 21 December 2021 referred to a complaint from the resident relating to a lack of contact and flood payments, and a further email of 22 December referred to several complaints regarding the flood payment. No evidence of any of these complaints has been provided to this Service. Following the escalation request the resident was directed back to the complaints process with the complaint logged at stage one on 4 January 2022.
The landlord’s explanation was that the staff member who dealt with the issue had not dealt with it as a complaint. It is clear that two members of staff believed that the resident had made a complaint which raises concerns regarding the efficiency of the landlord’s record keeping process and how it defines a complaint.
The landlord visited the property with the resident on 14 January 2022 and sent its response at stage one on 17 January 2022. Whilst this was slightly outside of its target timescales this was not an unreasonable delay as it sought to engage with the resident and view the property before the response was sent.
The resident sought information to escalate the complaint but following communication from the flood team decided not to proceed.
The resident expressed her further dissatisfaction upon discovering that the bath had been removed. Again, this was not initially treated as a complaint. The landlord inspected and a second complaint was made on 5 July 2022 following this inspection and the changes to the schedule of works.
The landlord sent its further response at stage one on 17 July 2022. As well as dealing with the complaint regarding the bathroom suite and the schedule of works, this response revisited the delays dealt with in its original response of 17 January 2022. It increased its offer of compensation to £250 for stress and inconvenience, plus £250 for delays. The landlord has explained that these amounts were the maximum level allowed under its compensation policy.
There were contradictory statements in the two letters relating to the establishing of the flood response team. One refers to this team being established in September 2021 whilst the other states it was established in August 2021. Whilst this makes little difference to the overall handling of the flood repairs, it is a further indication of poor record keeping and communication and will have further eroded the resident’s confidence in the landlord’s management of these events. This was evident in the misunderstanding that arose regarding the escalation request. There is no evidence that the landlord was seeking to discourage the escalation or restrict the resident’s access to stage two, but her lack of trust in the landlord resulted in her believing this to be the case.
The landlord’s final response increased the offer of compensation by £50 to reflect the minor delays in complaint handling. The review largely repeated the information contained in the first two complaint responses. There are no findings regarding the landlord’s handling of repairs that were not related to the flood (the down pipe on the back wall and the blocked drain). There was also limited information as to how the management of the outstanding works would be managed and trust rebuilt, or how it would improve its communication and avoid such issues as the work progressed. This was a missed opportunity.
Whilst it was appropriate for the landlord to apologise to the resident for the time taken to complete the repairs, and for the inconvenience this caused, the landlord’s explanations of what had gone wrong were vague and failed to fully appreciate that a disabled resident in her 60s was still unable to return to her home 14 months after it was damaged by a storm. Although the landlord had taken steps to limit the detriment to the resident through its offer of alternative accommodation, its response failed to acknowledge the time and trouble that the resident had to go to get the landlord to deliver action it had promised or to address the fact that the resident had not wanted or agreed to the bathroom being replaced.
The landlord also failed to recognise any learning that it might take from this case or steps it could take to avoid such an event occurring again. This, combined with its failures in record keeping and communication gave the impression that the complaint was not taken seriously. The £550 compensation offered by the landlord failed to appropriately reflect the adverse effect to the resident as a result of the unreasonable delays in the landlord repairing the flood damage and other repairs at her home. The maximum amounts allowed under the compensation policy failed to provide adequate redress for the landlord’s service failures.
In all the circumstances of the case, the landlord’s offer of compensation for its delays in the complaints process (included in its final offer of compensation of £550) did not put right the multiple failures in its complaints process, which was protracted and confusing for the resident and missed the opportunity to identify and address the full extent of its overall failures. A further determination of maladministration has been identified here, together with a further award of compensation.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme:
1. there was severe maladministration by the landlord in handling of repairs to the property following flooding.
2. There was service failure by the landlord in its handling of flood payments made to the resident.
3. There was maladministration by the landlord in its removal of bathroom fittings.
4. There was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the complaint.

Reasons

The landlord responses to the issues raised by the resident exacerbated the situation and further undermined the landlord/resident relationship. The landlord’s responses evidence a series of significant service failures over a period of time. It repeatedly failed to communicate effectively with the resident and this, and its poor record keeping, resulted in seriously detrimental treatment of the resident. The landlord also demonstrated a failure to put things right or to learn from outcomes.

Orders

That within 28 calendar days of this report, the landlord is to arrange for a senior member of staff to visit the resident to apologise for the failures identified in this report and to discuss, and address, any outstanding repairs relating to this investigation.
Within 14 calendar days of this visit, the landlord is to write to both the resident and this Service to confirm what was discussed at the meeting and detail any action to be taken and relevant timescale.
That within 28 calendar days of the date of this report, the landlord is to pay the resident a total of £2,000 compensation, broken down as follows:
1. £1200 for the failures identified with the landlord’s response to repair issues following the flooding.
2. £200 for the failures and detriment associated with its stopping of flood payments to the resident.
3. £350 for the failures related to the removal of bathroom fittings.
4. £250 for the failures in its complaints handling.
5. The £550 offered as part of the landlord’s complaints process is included in the above sum.
Conduct a senior management review into the case to identify any additional learning and improvement, and report to the appropriate governing body the outcome.
Confirm to this service that it has complied with all of the above orders by the specified dates.