Notting Hill Genesis (NHG) (202211220)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202211220

Notting Hill Genesis (NHG)

30 August 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 resident’s complaint is about the landlord’s response to a leak, and her request for compensation for the damage this caused to her belongings.

Background

The resident holds an assured tenancy for a house, which began in 2007.
On 10 June 2021, the resident reported a leak from the wet room in the property, and advised the landlord that the water had gone into the electrics. The landlord’s records indicate that its contractor, which had attended to make the property safe on the same day, thought the leak may be due to “residue water” under newly-fitted lino.
The landlord’s contractor carried out further investigations, including cutting a hole in the ceiling of the living room below. It recorded the repair works as completed by 21 June 2021.
The resident has explained to the landlord that she considers the leak to have been caused by its contractor, which she believes punctured a pipe while carrying out works to the wet room.
The landlord’s records show that by 28 June 2021 it was aware that the resident had requested compensation from it for damages to her sofa, television (tv), laptop, and flooring.
The landlord’s records show that its insurance team was advised of this, and it told the resident’s housing officer that if a formal claim was made, they should not treat this as a complaint, and should not contact the resident directly. Instead, the insurance team said it would contact the resident in the event of a claim.
The resident contacted this service in August 2022, and explained that she was seeking compensation and needed the landlord to provide details she had requested to her contents insurer. We asked the landlord to register a stage 1 complaint and respond to the resident.
The landlord registered the stage 1 complaint, and on 9 September 2022 it advised the resident it would need more time to investigate. It told the resident she would not need to complete a formal insurance claim form to proceed, and asked her to send it an email with details of her claim. It added that it had asked its contractor for a new inspection and repair of the wet room.
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 22 September 2022. It:
1. Advised her again how to submit an insurance claim to it;
2. Offered her £250 compensation for distress and inconvenience, and apologised for the delay in dealing with her request for damages as an insurance claim.
The resident submitted an insurance claim on 26 September 2022, which listed the items that she was requesting compensation for (two sofas, a tv, surround sound, laptop, wooden flooring, two ceiling lights, carpets, and 15 towels). As she had been requested to, the resident explained why she felt the landlord was responsible for these costs, confirming that she believed its contractor had caused the leak.
The resident requested that her complaint was escalated to stage 2 on 5 October 2022. She advised the landlord that she did not consider its offer of £250 to be proportionate, and she noted that there were outstanding repairs to be completed.
The resident supplied photos to the landlord, showing items affected by the leak and what looked to be a collapse of an area of the ceiling, and the landlord passed these photos to its insurance team.
The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 17 November 2022. It:
1. Apologised for the level of its initial offer of compensation and for the delay before its stage 2 response was issued;
2. Advised that it understood the resident had made a claim to her contents insurer, and that its own insurer had been made aware. It explained that it would not be able to comment on the claim for damages in its complaint response, and provided the resident with contact details for its insurance team;
3. Advised the resident that it had “had discussions” with its contractor regarding the cause of the leak;
4. Increased its offer of compensation to £1,300, made up of:
  1. £250 offered at stage 1;
  2. £250 for its delayed stage 2 complaint response;
  3. £350 for its poor communication during the handling of the resident’s complaint;
  4. £450 for stress and inconvenience caused to the resident.

Post-complaints process

The resident contacted the landlord on 1 December 2022 for an update, and its internal records show that its insurance team told the complaint handler that it had received the resident’s email containing photos, but did not consider that it had a received a letter of claim from the resident.
The resident contacted the landlord again on 14 February 2023, and explained that she was upset that it had not sent an invoice and associated number to her contents insurer, which had now advised her it could not proceed with her claim and would close her case. She asked the landlord to confirm whether its insurance team would pay for the items she lost.
The landlord’s internal records show that its staff discussed on 21 February 2023 that its insurers had reviewed the information provided, and had not yet received a letter of claim. Its insurance team said it would need details of what happened, when it happened and why the resident held it responsible.
The landlord’s records from 27 July 2023 show that it still needed this information.
On 1 December 2023, the landlord notified its insurers of a claim. The resident chased the landlord for updates, with the landlord noting she was doing this “constantly” in January 2024.
On 16 January 2024 the landlord’s insurer advised it that the resident’s home was not covered by the landlord’s insurance policy, because the freehold was owned by the local council, which had its own insurance.
As of August 2024, the resident is still seeking financial compensation for the costs she incurred after having to replace her damaged belongings. She explained to this Service that the events had caused her great distress, and her mental health had been further affected when she had to ask friends to loan her money to buy a new tv. Her contents insurance had covered “minimal” expenses, including replacing a sofa and the flooring, but would not pay for items she had already thrown away. The resident explained that she has a painful health condition which is made worse by stress.
The resident has advised us that the repairs carried out to the wet room flooring were “slapdash”, and water does not drain properly. She has told us that this leads to water running down the wall of her living room below, and she has had to “repaint a lot”.

Assessment and findings

We acknowledge the resident was deeply upset by the events covered above. She has explained the impact of the leak, meaning she had to miss an important event, and the subsequent impact of her efforts to get compensation for her damaged belongings.
We do not issue decisions regarding health conditions and whether these have been affected by a landlord’s actions (or a failure to act), because these are medical matters and fall outside the scope of this report. We expect these matters to be able to be assessed under the landlord’s public liability insurance, if the resident wishes to pursue this matter.
The records we have seen evidence that the landlord treated the initial report of a leak (in June 2021) with appropriate urgency, and it has made steps to recognise and offer redress for the impact on the resident until repairs were completed later that month.
The resident has reported to us that these repairs were not effective, although the landlord may not have been aware of this. We recommend that the landlord ensure it takes appropriate steps to investigate and remedy any outstanding problems with the wet room floor.
The landlord’s records show that it was aware the resident was seeking compensation for damages as early as 28 June 2021. The delay until it confirmed its insurance policy did not actually include the property (in January 2024) was excessive, and there appear to have been several missed opportunities for it to assist the resident with submitting her claim (and her own contents insurance claim) in the interim two and a half years.
The landlord’s complaints policy does set out that insurance matters fall outside the scope of its complaint process, which is reasonable. This Service similarly considers decisions regarding insurance claims to fall outside our jurisdiction, and in our experience it is common practice for landlords to deal with claims for damages through a separate insurance process.
What does fall within the scope of our investigation, is the landlord’s communication of these policies to the resident, and the process the resident had to follow to submit and progress the claim with the landlord. The resident had clearly set out a list of damaged items in June 2021, and when she re-submitted her claim after receiving the landlord’s complaint responses, she sent it photos. The landlord’s insurance team advised its colleagues who were in direct contact with the resident (including a housing officer and complaints handlers) that it needed more information, but there are no records showing that this information was clearly communicated to the resident. Given the complaints team’s knowledge of the resident’s circumstances, it should have done more to ensure that the resident understood what specific additional information the insurance team required from her.
The failure to progress the resident’s request for compensation via its insurance policy, and the failure to identify that the property was in fact insured by a third-party, within reasonable timescales, amount to service failure on the part of the landlord. We consider its offer of compensation at stage 2 to be reasonably proportionate (in our opinion) for the distress and inconvenience the resident had experienced to that point. An order is made below, to recognise the ongoing distress and inconvenience the resident experienced after the landlord’s stage 2 response was issued.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s response to a leak, and the resident’s request for compensation for the damage this caused to her belongings.

Orders and Recommendations

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must apologise to the resident for the impact of its failure to process her insurance claim within a reasonable timescale. It must provide a copy of this to us once completed.
Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must directly pay the resident £250 compensation for the avoidable distress and inconvenience she experienced while attempting to submit an insurance claim to it.

Recommendations

We recommend that the landlord contact the resident and arrange for the investigation and repair (as appropriate) of the wet room flooring.
We recommend that the landlord consider the resident’s experience, and how it can offer assistance to residents in future, in cases where the details needed for an insurance claim have not been received. We recommend that this includes consideration of how its insurance team could directly communicate these messages to residents, as well as the liaison arrangements between its insurance and complaints teams to ensure that information is appropriately shared between them.
We recommend the landlord consider whether it could have identified that the resident’s home is not covered by its insurance policy at an earlier stage, and whether it could make any changes to its procedure for insurance claims to prevent delay in future.
We recommend that the landlord contacts the resident to explain how she can submit an insurance claim to the building’s freeholder, and provide her with appropriate support to do this.
The landlord has a support service for residents experiencing financial and other difficulties. We recommend it arrange for the service to reach out to the resident to provide support and advice as appropriate.
The resident has explained to us that she found that her housing officer had changed several times during the period covered by this investigation. We ask the landlord to note her feedback that she was disappointed not to have been advised of these changes, and that she had to repeat her story several times to different members of staff. We recommend that the landlord consider whether it could invite the resident to take part in any future opportunities to provide feedback, for example as part of ‘resident engagement’ exercises, if she wishes.