Notting Hill Genesis (NHG) (202209185)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202209185

Notting Hill Genesis (NHG)

5 January 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 complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Reports of leaks from the property above, and the associated repairs.
2. Reports of a rat infestation.
3. Concerns the water tank was contaminated.
4. Query about the size of a bedroom.

Background

The resident is an assured shorthold tenant of the landlord in a 2 bedroom first floor flat, in a block, and her tenancy started in November 2016. The resident’s flat has another flat directly above it. The landlord does not have any recorded vulnerabilities for the resident.
Prior to raising her complaint in March 2022, the resident had reported leaks from the flat above on 3 occasions. This was in January 2020 (cause not recorded), November 2020 (cause not recorded), and February 2021(leak from heating pipes). This investigation has only considered the events shortly before the resident first raised her complaint, but the information about earlier leaks has been included as useful context.

Summary of events

The resident contacted the landlord on 14 March 2022 and reported a leak from the flat above. The landlord attended the same day and it was reported the neighbour above had left a tap on, causing water to flood his bathroom. The landlord resolved the leak issue, checked the electrics to make them safe, and disconnected the kitchen light.
The resident contacted the landlord to make a complaint on 31 March 2022 and said:
1. She had experienced a leak from above for the 5th time, and it had left her kitchen “unusable” and some belongings “irreparably damaged”
2. She felt the leaks were being caused deliberately
3. She could not afford to run the dehumidifier the landlord had supplied to help dry out the kitchen
4. Her water tank was “infested with flies”, was “contaminated”, and the piping allowed vermin to access her property
5. 1 of the bedrooms in her property was not of a “legal size”.
The landlord sent the resident its stage 1 complaint response on 12 April 2022 and said:
1. The various instances of leaks from the flat above were not related to each other. It noted the resident’s concern that the neighbour in the flat above was causing the leaks deliberately, but there was nothing to suggest that was the case
2. It had raised a repair to reinstate the kitchen light, and redecorate the kitchen ceiling
3. It offered the resident £50 in compensation for the “distress and inconvenience” caused by the leak
4. It offered the resident £10 per week for the costs of running the dehumidifier at a total of £24.28
5. It had responded to the resident’s concerns about her water tank being contaminated in a previous complaint. It had asked her to send the report she said she had commissioned, in the previous complaint. It was yet to receive the report, but had asked its pest control contractor to attend and check the water tank. The contractor would book the appointment directly with her
6. It had considered the measurements of the bedroom, sent by the resident, and found the room to be 9.46 square metres. It provided information from the Housing Act, and explained that the room was an adequate size
7. It explained the resident’s property was not considered “statutory overcrowded”. This was because her household comprised of 3 people, and the property could accommodate 3.5 people, based on the size of the bedrooms
8. The resident could apply for a housing transfer, and it had provided the appropriate forms as part of its complaint response.
On 21 April 2022, the landlord attended the resident’s property and reconnected the light in the kitchen.
The landlord’s repair log shows it attended the resident’s property on 21 May 2022, to attend to a leak from the flat above, and to “make safe” the electrics.
On 8 June 2022 the landlord attended the resident’s property to discuss the leak issue, and the size of the bedroom. The notes show that it advised that, after investigating each leak, it had found “no malice”, and the leaks caused by the neighbour were “accidental”. The notes show that the landlord took measurements of the bedroom that was the subject of the complaint, which were recorded as 1.9 metres by 4.25 metres.
The resident contacted the landlord on 30 June 2022 and asked her complaint to be taken to stage 2. She explained that she had experienced a “6th flood” in the kitchen, and the resident upstairs said he had “kicked over a bucket of water by mistake”. The flood in the kitchen had tripped the electrics again.
The resident contacted the landlord on 1 July 2022 and asked it to arrange a pest control operative to attend her property for “emergency rat proofing”. She explained a concern that the neighbouring blocks had a rat infestation, and the rats could access her property through holes in the bathroom, and water tank area. The landlord responded and said it had raised an urgent appointment with its pest control contractor, who would be in touch. The pest control operative attempted to visit the resident’s property on 11 July 2022, and the notes stated the resident “refused works”.
The local authority environmental health team visited the resident’s property on 12 July 2022 and followed up with an email to the landlord that said:
1. There was an “unreasonably large” opening for the inlet pipe on the water tank that debris or vermin could fall through, into the tank. There was no evidence of vermin at the visit, but it was recommended the hole was reduced in size
2. There were large holes around the waste pipes in the bath. Again, no evidence of vermin was seen, but the holes should be blocked as a preventative measure
3. There was no evidence of rodent droppings, or smell, anywhere in the property
4. There was no working light in the kitchen, as it was removed following a leak. The ceiling was dry, and there was no evidence of a live leak. The light should be reinstated as soon as possible
5. There was a fault with the rear bedroom socket, which needed repairing
6. The resident had informed the officer in attendance that she had never been provided with an electrical safety certificate. The landlord was asked to provide the latest certificate for the property
The landlord responded on 12 July 2022 and said:
1. The electrics in the kitchen had been isolated, following the recent leak. The repair to restore the electrics were booked for the next day
2. It was aware of an issue with the water tank and had raised several appointments in 2021, but had not been able to access the property on 3 occasions. It had raised the job again, and its contractor would be in touch with the resident to book the appointment
3. It had raised 5 pest control jobs during 2021, at each visit it had laid bait, but found no evidence of bait consumption, or rodent activity. It had raised a further pest control visit with its contractor in early July 2022.
The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 28 July 2022, and said:
1. It apologised that the resident possessions were damaged, and that she had suffered a monetary loss, as a result of the floods in her kitchen. But, it did not cover direct loss of items through its compensation policy. It attached a leaflet giving advice about how the resident could take out her own contents insurance
2. It increased its offer of compensation to £75 in recognition of the inconvenience caused by the leaks
3. It restated its offer of compensation of £24.28, for the cost of running the dehumidifier
4. Her housing officer had visited and measured the bedroom and found it to be 8.075 square metres.
5. In line with its “bedroom classification procedure” and statutory overcrowding guidance, the bedroom was suitably sized to accommodate 1 person, and as such the resident was not classed as overcrowded.
6. It provided a guidance table from the Housing Act to show how it had worked this out
7. During its pest control visits in 2021, there was no evidence of pests in her property. Its pest control contractor had tried to visit on 11 July 2022, but she refused the appointment. It asked the resident to get in touch if she wanted a further pest control visit
8. It had attempted to inspect the water tank in March 2022, but had 3 “no access” appointments, so it closed the job
9. A further job was raised for the water tank on 12 July 2022, to clean the top of the tank and reduce the size of the holes to reduce the chances of debris or pests falling in. The repair was booked for 5 August 2022
10. As a result of the latest leak, the resident’s kitchen light was disconnected. It had attended to reconnect it on 13 July 2022
11. It had provided a copy of its latest electrical safety certificate to the local authority environmental health team, and had attached a copy to its complaint response to the resident.

Events after the landlord’s complaints procedure

The landlord attended to inspect the water tank on 11 August 2022 and the notes reflect it was unable to gain access, and closed the job.
The landlord contacted this Service on 24 August 2022 to provide evidence for our investigation and said: “in response to [the resident’s] escalation to the Housing Ombudsman we have appointed a leak specialist”.
The resident contacted this Service on 19 October 2022 and asked the Ombudsman to investigate her complaint, and said:
1. Her contents insurer had told her it was not within its remit to consider claims that related to “building faults”
2. The compensation it had offered for its handling of the leak issue, did not put things right
3. She disputed the landlord’s measurement of the bedroom and said the “usable internal room area” was only “4 metres”.
The resident experienced a further flood in her kitchen on 24 November 2022. The landlord attended on the same day to investigate, and found the resident above had left a tap running in his bathroom, which caused the issue. The landlord emailed the resident on the same day and informed her that it was going to appoint a specialist leak surveying company to inspect. This was so it could give recommendations in relation to the repeated leaks from the property above.
The leak specialist visited the resident’s property, and the property above, on 12 December 2022, and produced a report that said:
1. There was evidence of leakage from drainage pipework, and bath trap and overflow, from the property above
2. The bath and basin drainage in the property above was blocked
3. The lack of shower screen in the property above likely caused water to run down the side of the bath, into the property below (the resident’s property)
4. It recommended investigating the pipework further to confirm and repair the leaks
The landlord raised a repair to complete the works recommended by the leak survey on 20 December 2022, the evidence available indicates the works were completed in January 2023.
The resident told this Service, on 17 December 2023, that she had most recently experienced a leak from the flay above in December 2023, and the issue was ongoing.

Assessment and findings

Relevant obligations, policies, and procedures

Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 obliges the landlord to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property, and keep in repair and proper working order the installations for the supply of water and sanitation.
The landlord’s repairs policy says it has 2 main categories of responsive repair. For emergency repairs and defects, it says it aims to attend within 4 hours and have services restored within 24 hours and all further works completed within 24 hours. For routine repairs, it aims to have all works completed within 20 working days of the repair being reported.
The landlord’s pest control guidance states that it is responsible for dealing with infestations in communal areas, or because of a repair it is responsible for.
The landlord’s compensation policy states it can award compensation for distress and inconvenience. The amounts it can offer are:
1. For “low impact” in can offer up to £50
2. For “medium impact” it can offer up to £125
3. For “high impact” it can offer up to £250, and it can offer over £250 in “exceptional” circumstances.

Reports of leaks from the property above, and the associated repairs.

When the resident raised her complaint she said that she thought some of the leaks were caused deliberately, by the neighbour in the property above. The landlord explained that it was view that this was not the case. The resident’s concerns are noted, and the Ombudsman does not seek to dispute her claim. However, it is not within the scope of this investigation to determine if the neighbour above was causing the leaks deliberately. If the resident remains concerned that any ongoing leaks are being caused deliberately, she may wish to raise this concern with the landlord.
The resident also raised a concern that she had experienced damage to her personal possessions, because of the leaks. It is not within the scope of this Service to determine whether the resident did suffer a quantifiable loss due to damages to her possessions. However, this investigation has considered the landlord’s handling of her concerns about these issues, and whether its response was reasonable in all of the circumstances of the case.
The evidence available for this investigation shows that when the resident reported leaks from the property above, the landlord took the reports seriously. The evidence shows that the landlord logged the repairs as emergency repairs, and always attended the same day to investigate. When appropriate, it ensured the electrics in the kitchen were temporarily disconnected, and safe. This was in line with its repairs policy and reasonable in the circumstances. However, the evidence also shows that the landlord, at times, was not proactive in following up on repairs, or reinstating the electrics.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response of April 2022 explained it had raised a repair to reinstate the light in the kitchen, to do so was appropriate. However, it did not explain when it hoped to complete the repairs. This was a shortcoming in its handling of the matter, as the resident was left unsure of when it would complete the repair.
The landlord reinstated the kitchen light on 21 April 2022, which was 26 working days after it disconnected the light for safety reasons. It is noted that this was 6 days outside of the timeframe set out in its policy. However, given it would have needed to allow time for the electrics to dry out, the delay was not unreasonable.
It is concerning that, following a leak at the end of May 2022, the resident was left without lighting or working electrics in her kitchen until it was reinstated in July 2022. This was well outside of the timeframe set out in its repairs policy. It is noted that the electrics, again, would have needed time to dry out before being reinstated. But, this Service has seen no evidence the landlord was proactive in booking the repair, which was not booked until it was contacted by the local authority’s environmental health team. This was a failing in its handling of the matter, which caused a detriment.
It is noted that the resident did have a working cooker during the above period, but experienced distress and inconvenience of having no lighting, or other working sockets. The resident was cost time and trouble in needing to seek assistance from the local authority environmental health team in order to get the landlord to attend to the issue. However, the evidence also shows that after the local authority brought the issue to the landlord’s attention, it attended the next day to reinstate the electrics in the kitchen.
The landlord’s response in relation to the costs incurred by the dehumidifier was reasonable in the circumstances. The resident expressed a concern about increased costs, and the landlord sought to put this right by contributing to those costs. This was supportive and proportionate in the circumstances.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response, in its assessment of the issue of the electrics in the kitchen, was inappropriate. The response was dismissive, simply stating the date the electrics were installed. This failed to address the fact that it had done so well outside of the timeframes in its policy, and only after the local authority intervened. The response showed a lack of assessment of its handling of the matter, or an acknowledgement that the resident was inconvenienced by its approach.
Following further leaks at the resident’s property, the landlord instructed a leak specialist to inspect the resident’s property, and the property above. The decision to instruct a specialist was reasonable in the circumstances, given the frequency of the issue occurring. That it did not do this until December 2022 was unreasonable, considering the repeated issues of leaks. It is noted that the leaks were caused by various issues, including accidental spillages, or the resident above leaving taps on. This evidently impacted on the landlord’s ability to identify other causes of leaks. However, considering the frequency of leaks, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to do have done a more in depth investigation sooner. This conclusion is supported by the fact that the survey of December 2022, did identify underlying issues that evidently contributed to the leaks.
The landlord comment to this Service, that it instructed the survey “in response to [the resident’s] escalation to the Housing Ombudsman”, was inappropriate. Its comment further supports the conclusion that the landlord’s approach to the resident’s concerns about leaks was not proactive. It is also of concern that, having previously offered compensation, for the inconvenience the issue had caused, it did not revisit its offer of compensation following further leaks.
This Service has seen evidence that the resident has reported an issue with leaks from the property above, as recently as August 2023. While the landlord’s handling these individual reports is not within the scope of this investigation, as the matter is evidently still outstanding, an appropriate order is set out below.
The landlord offered compensation for £75 for the distress and inconvenience the issue caused, and £24.28 for the costs of running the dehumidifier. However, it did not outline what failings it had identified that meant it felt an offer of compensation was for distress and inconvenience was appropriate. This was a failure to apply the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principle of learning from outcomes. The landlord failed to acknowledge that it was not proactive in reinstating the electrics in the kitchen. The issue persisted, requiring further works in January 2023, but it did not offer further redress despite further detriment, and it appears the matter is still outstanding. As such, the £99.28 it offered for its response to the leak issue did not fully put things right for the resident, and a series of appropriate orders are set out below.

Reports of a rat infestation

Under the landlord’s pest control policy, it is the resident’s responsibility to deal with vermin in the property. Where there is an infestation, a landlord should ensure that the property is free from outstanding repair (for which it is responsible) which is leading or contributing to the infestation. The landlord’s correspondence with the local authority referenced several pest control visits during 2021. This Service has seen historic records of those pest control visits, which occurred in 2021. It is evident that, during 2021, the resident reported concerns about vermin entering her property, the landlord promptly arranged for pest control operatives to attend. It is noted that the visits in 2021 found no evidence of rodent activity within the property.
The landlord’s complaint response of April 2022 said that, following the resident’s concerns about vermin, it had instructed its pest control operative to attend. This Service has seen no evidence, either in the landlord’s repair log, or log of pest control visits provided, that this visit took place. This was a failing in its handling of the matter. The resident experienced an inconvenience of raising a concern about vermin and the landlord not doing something it said it would, in relation to that concern.
The resident raised a further concern about vermin, and the possibility of rats being able to enter her property, in July 2022. The landlord raised an urgent case with its pest control contractor, which was reasonable in the circumstances, and in line with its pest control guidance.
The evidence indicates that the resident refused the appointment with the pest control operative on 11 July 2022. It is unclear why the resident did not want this appointment to go ahead, given her concerns about rats. However, the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response, of July 2022 was supportive, and encouraged the resident to ask if she wanted it to rebook the pest control operative to attend. This was reasonable in the circumstance and evidence the landlord took the resident’s concerns about rats seriously.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response, however, was silent on the pest control visit it said it would arrange in its stage 1 complaint response. This was a shortcoming in its handling of the matter, as it failed to appropriately assess its actions at stage 1, in its stage 2 complaint response.
Overall, the landlord’s approach to the resident’s concerns about rats was reasonable. It took a supportive approach and booked pest control operatives on receipt of the resident’s reports. It failed to book an appointment, it said it would in its stage 1 complaint response, and its stage 2 complaint response did not acknowledge the failing. There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a rat infestation.

Concerns the water tank was contaminated

The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response, in relation to the resident concerns about her water tank, and possible contamination were inappropriate. In line with its obligations under the Landlord and Tenant Act, the hot water tank was an aspect of the resident’s property it was responsible for. The resident had raised a concern that the hot water tank was contaminated. For the landlord to rely on the resident providing evidence of contamination, was inappropriate. It is noted that the landlord explained it had already responded to this concern as part of a previous complaint, and this Service has not had sight of that response. However, given fresh concerns were raised about water contamination, it is reasonable to expect it to investigate, in line with its obligations under the Landlord and Tenant Act.
As part of its response, the landlord advised that it would instruct its pest control operative to investigate the water tank. As outlined above, this visit did not happen, which was a failing on the part of the landlord, and caused an inconvenience. It is noted that the resident refused the pest control visit of July 2022, which impacted on the landlord’s ability to respond to the resident’s concerns that pests had contaminated the water tank.
Following concerns raised by the local authority environmental health team about large gaps that meant vermin or debris could fall in to the water tank, the landlord promptly booked another repair to assess the water tank. This was reasonable in the circumstances and is evidence the landlord took the concerns raised seriously. The evidence available for this investigation indicates it was unable to access the property to inspect the water tank. It is unclear why the appointment did not go ahead. If the resident remains concerned about the water tank, she may wish to raise this issue again with the landlord.
The landlord’s explanation about the water tank issue, to the local authority in July 2022, said that it had sought to address the matter in 2021, and had been unable to complete the appointment on 3 occasions. The records provided for this investigation support this claim. This Service has seen no evidence the resident raised concerns about it again, until her complaint of March 2022. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that the difficulty the landlord had in accessing the property to assess the water tank, impacted on its ability to respond to the resident’s concerns.
The resident has repeatedly expressed a concern that the water tank was contaminated, and the landlord inappropriately put the onus on the resident to provide proof at stage 1. This service has seen no evidence that the landlord sought to test the water during the complaints process. It is noted that the landlord had seen no evidence of vermin around or in the tank. However, that it did not explicitly outline its position on whether it would test the water for contamination was a further shortcoming, which caused an inconvenience, and an appropriate order is made below.

Query about the size of a bedroom

In relation to the resident’s concerns about the size of the bedroom, the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response was detailed and sought to manage her expectations. The response outlined its understanding of the size of the bedroom, based on the measurements the resident provided, and the law in relation to overcrowding. This was a reasonable approach in the circumstances, and landlord’s approach was fair and thorough.
While seeking to manage the resident’s expectations about its policy, and the law, it also explained it would support the resident in a transfer application. This was a supportive approach and is evidence that the landlord showed understanding about the disappointment its position had caused.
Following further concerns raised, as part of the resident’s stage 2 complaint, the landlord visited the resident’s property to measure the bedroom in question. This was appropriate in the circumstances. The landlord provided a further, and more detailed, explanation of its position in relation to its interpretation of the law and overcrowding. The landlord’s approach was reasonable in the circumstances, and its response to the resident’s concerns about the size of the bedroom, and overcrowding was thorough.
The resident, in her email to this Service, raised a concern that the landlord’s measurement was inaccurate and the “usable” space in the bedroom was only 4 metres. The Ombudsman does not seek to dispute the resident’s concerns about “usable” space in the bedroom. However, this Service has seen no evidence to indicate that the measurements the landlord took, on 8 June 2022, were inaccurate.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of leaks from the property above, and the associated repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a rat infestation.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns the water tank was contaminated.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s query about the size of a bedroom.

Reasons

Whenever the resident reported leaks from the property above, the landlord logged the issue as an emergency repair, and attending within the timeframes set out in its policy. There was a delay in reinstating the electrics after a leak in May 2022, which caused the resident an inconvenience. The landlord was not proactive in booking the follow up repairs, and the resident was inconvenienced by the need to involve the local authority. The compensation it offered did not fully put things right for the resident.
Overall, the landlord’s approach to the resident’s concerns about rats was reasonable. It promptly booked pest control operatives on receipt of the resident’s reports on most occasions. It did, however, fail to book an appointment, it said it would in its stage 1 complaint response, and its stage 2 complaint response did not acknowledge the failing.
The landlord inappropriately put the onus on the resident to provide proof that the water tank was contaminated. This Service has seen no evidence that the landlord sought to test the water during the complaints process. It did not explicitly outline its position on whether it would test the water for contamination, which was a shortcoming.
The landlord took the resident’s concerns about the size of the bedroom and overcrowding seriously. It provided a detailed explanation in its stage 1 complaint, based on measurements the resident had provided. It took a supportive approach in giving advice about a transfer application. As part of its stage 2 complaint investigation, it considered the matter in more detail and took its own measurements. It provided a further detailed response, and sought to manage the resident’s expectations.

Orders

Within 4 weeks, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Apologise for the failings identified in this report
2. Pay the resident £574.28 in compensation, made up of:
  1. The £99.28 is offered for its handling of the leaks, and the associated repairs (if it has not already done so)
  2. £350 in recognition of the distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble caused by its handing of the leaks and the associated repairs
  3. £75 for the inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a rat infestation
  4. £50 for the inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns the water tank was contaminated
3. Meet with the resident to discuss any ongoing concerns about leaks from the property above, and agree an action plan of how it will monitor the situation
4. Meet with the resident to discuss her concerns about the water tank, considering her ongoing concerns about contamination. The landlord should conduct an inspection of the tank at this meeting.
Within 8 weeks the landlord is ordered to:
1. Considering the failings identified in this report, complete a review into its handling of the leak issue. The review should focus on the importance of learning from its failure to do follow up repairs, such as reinstating the electrics, and identify how it can avoid similar mistakes happening again
2. The findings of the review should be shared with this Service, also within 8 weeks
3. Conduct training with its complaint handling staff, with a particular focus on:
  1. Showing learning in its complaint response
  2. A thorough investigation that seeks to assess all its actions in its handling of an issue.