Notting Hill Genesis (NHG) (202212610)

A blue and grey text

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202212610

Notting Hill Genesis (NHG)

31 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

This complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Response to the resident’s various concerns about the condition of the block and the landlord’s management;
2. Complaint handling.
The Ombudsman also considered the landlord’s record keeping.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a leaseholder and her lease began in late 2000. The property is a second floor flat in a block (the block). Survey images show the block has a decorative (porch-like) structure attached to an external wall. It contains 8 homes and its residents are all leaseholders. They raised a group complaint with the landlord and the resident was the lead complainant.
The landlord provided a copy of the block’s standard lease terms. Section 5.3 shows the landlord is obliged to maintain, repair, redecorate, and renew. This includes the structure and exterior of the block, along with its communal areas and service installations. Leaseholders are obliged to contribute towards the landlord’s repair and management costs in the form of service charges.
The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints procedure. Its relevant policy document shows it aims to respond to complaints within 10 working days at stage 1. At stage 2, it aims to respond within 20 working days. Additional time is available at either stage providing the resident is kept informed.

Summary of events

Routine inspection records show the landlord visited the block around 21 March 2022. The inspection notes said “resident inspectors” were also present. The landlord noted several issues including: a defective entry system, multiple lights out, windows that needed cleaning, blocked drains, and trees that required maintenance. The parties’ subsequent correspondence suggests the attending residents were unhappy with the landlord’s performance.
The resident raised a formal complaint by email on 27 May 2022. She said the block’s residents raised several concerns during the landlord’s last visit to the estate. Though she acknowledged some actions were being progressed, she said the residents felt a formal complaint was their only option. The resident’s email included a list of issues for the landlord to action. Her main points were:
1. The block’s interior had deteriorated to the extent it was now a health and safety risk. For example, its worn carpet had bunched in places which presented a trip hazard. “Side brackets” on the stairs had fallen and could hurt residents. Overall, the block’s communal spaces were in a poor state of repair.
2. Residents felt the landlord was failing to fulfil its obligations under section 5.3 of the lease agreement. Its actions were negligent and contrary to both relevant health and safety measures, and good estate management. The landlord previously indicated a cyclical works programme in 2022 would include the block.
3. Residents understood the programme included: carpet replacement, painting, and window repair works. The landlord should confirm the block was included, the relevant works, and the applicable timescales. It should also provide: the value of the block’s sinking fund, its surveys and risk assessments, and a repair history for the last 15 years.
4. The garden also suffered from the landlord’s lack of maintenance. Its shrubs and flowers had “been destroyed”. Since the landlord previously discussed replanting, it should provide a work schedule and a catalogue of the available plants. It should also formally confirm it would install a storage shed.
5. A metal side gate had been left unlocked for years. Residents had witnessed unknown parties entering their communal space. The situation was a safety risk and it interfered with their right to “enjoy the premises peaceably”. The landlord should secure the door and distribute keys to residents.
6. When heavy vehicles passed on a nearby road, the block noticeably shook. This was particularly evident from the second floor upwards. Residents were worried there was a structural issue. The landlord should review the attached images of external cracks and arrange a structural engineer’s assessment.
7. A community centre next to the block was causing problems. Items stored against the block’s fence were damaging large sections, rubbish was dumped in the block’s bins, loud music and singing were a nuisance, and visitors were seen urinating in the centre’s grounds.
8. The landlord should inspect the community centre’s grounds, which looked like a “homeless shelter”. Storage should be moved to a more discreet location and the care taker should be advised not to use the block’s bins. To avoid disturbance, the centre’s windows should be kept closed during events.
9. There were other maintenance issues. Near the roof, a loose tile was at risk of falling. This tile was reported to the landlord in November 2020. A tree obstructing the garden needed to be managed and a wooden door was broken.
In an email update to the resident on 31 May 2021, the landlord confirmed other block residents had endorsed her complaint. As a result, it would address its response to the whole block. It also said it expected to respond by 13 June 2022. However, it would notify the resident if it needed more time. The landlord assured the resident it was progressing the items in her list, along with other repairs it noted during its monthly inspections.
The parties exchanged emails between 7 and 8 June 2022. The landlord said it would reallocate the complaint because its local manager was moving to another site. However, works to the block’s entry system were scheduled for 21 June 2022. On the same day, the resident replied she was disappointed the move had impacted the complaint. She said she was now less confident that matters would be resolved. Further, the landlord should take disciplinary action in relation to lights left flashing through the night (from the community centre).
The next day, the landlord assured the resident its response would be coordinated internally. It said it was engaging with the community centre and the resident’s report would be passed on internally. With reference to additional points from the resident, the landlord asked to extend its response deadline by several days. The resident subsequently declined its request. She said, “Though it was “clearly…antisocial behaviour”, the reported light issue could be resolved later.
The landlord issued a stage 1 response on 15 June 2022. This was around 11 working days after the resident’s complaint. It was also 2 working days after the deadline given in the landlord’s initial update email. The landlord did not acknowledge any delays. It said, during a meeting with residents on 18 March 2022, it agreed the block would benefit from cyclical works. However, it was unlikely the block would be added to the landlord’s current programme, which was already in progress. The main points were:
1. The block’s last stock condition survey was completed in July 2018. It determined cyclical works were due in 2020. The block had been deemed a priority and it was earmarked for the landlord’s 2022-23 programme. Further updates would be provided in due course.
2. When the works were confirmed, residents would be invited to tour the block with the landlord’s surveyor and contractors. This would help to establish the scope of the required works. Subsequently, a consultation period would allow them to make observations. The landlord was currently unable to provide timescales.
3. Meanwhile, the landlord would complete routine repairs where necessary. For example, the following repairs, identified during the site inspection, had been carried out: carpet fixing, washing line replacements and light fixing repairs/ replacements. A replacement door entry system was pending.
4. From the landlord’s audited 2020-21 accounts, there was £9,667.75 in the block’s sinking fund. This did not include figures from the financial year 2021-22. Since there were no records from the previous cyclical works on file, the landlord was unable to retrieve the block’s repair history, survey and risk assessments.
5. From the March 2022 visit, it was clear there was lots of empty space in the garden and the area could be improved. The landlord’s contractor was not providing flowers at the moment, but trees and shrubs were available. The landlord was sorry this information was not passed on at the time.
6. The landlord would request a garden catalogue from another contractor. It had also held discussions around installing a rainwater butt to ensure any plants had sufficient water. It would arrange quotes and liaise with residents in due course.
7. The landlord was sorry the side gate was not yet secure. It wanted to check, with its fire safety department, that a padlock was not a fire safety risk. The new block manager would follow this up and update residents when the gate was secure. Residents would likely have to buy their own keys.
8. The landlord had not noticed any structural cracks to the block. It could arrange an engineer but any investigations would be service chargeable. Since upcoming works were required to the block, the landlord felt the matter was not an immediate priority. Still, it could be progressed with agreement from the residents.
9. A garden shed required approval from the landlord’s fire safety and assets teams. The works would be service chargeable, but they were feasible if the residents agreed. Similarly, a bike storage solution would also require approval.
10. During the landlord’s inspection, no items or damage to the block’s fence were found. The community centre had advised a storage container in its grounds had been placed there by the landlord. To improve its presentation, the parties were considering decorating the container. A storage shed erected recently had been removed along with a flashing light shining into the block.
11. Concerns around noise and dumped rubbish were raised with the centre’s management, who advised no religious groups had used it for several months. Further, the groups would “not have use of the facility moving forwards”. If problems persisted, residents should report them immediately to the landlord’s new block manager.
12. In relation to the slipped tile, the matter was with the landlord’s roofing contractor. Quotes were pending and residents would be updated in due course. The non-urgent works recommended by a tree survey on 7 April 2022 would be completed later in the year. Wooden gate repairs had been scheduled.
13. The above issues were raised during the landlord’s previous visit. It had agreed to address them but advised it needed time to arrange matters. The landlord was sorry it had not updated residents since then. However, it was working to resolve the highlighted issues. An action plan would be provided in due course.
14. It was evident areas of the block had “not received the management required and (the landlord had) provided a lack of service”. On that basis, it was offering to refund 50% of the management fee for the years 2020-21 and 2021-22. The refunded amount would be “£1,200 across all residents”.
On 18 June 2022 the resident asked to escalate the complaint. She said the block’s residents were not satisfied their concerns had been fully addressed. In addition, the landlord’s response was not “an accurate account” of previous discussions. She asked for its review team’s details so she could respond in full. The Ombudsman has not seen the resident’s full escalation rationale.
The landlord updated the block’s residents 5 days later. Its email said a padlock would be installed on the side gate the following day. Further, a key would be hand delivered to each resident. The resident replied the same day. She thanked the landlord for installing a new door entry system. She said the works went smoothly and residents were pleased with the new equipment.
The landlord issued a stage 2 response on 13 July 2022. This was around 17 working days after the resident’s escalation request. The response was issued by the landlord’s estate operations leader. It listed multiple complaint points, which the landlord said were discussed during a previous phone call with the resident. Broadly, the list matched the issues the resident raised at stage 1. The response included several follow up actions for the landlord. The main points were:
1. Many of the landlord’s cyclical programmes were impacted by the pandemic and other factors. In some cases, the landlord was up to 2 years behind schedule. The block was on a “reserve list” for a cyclical programme in 2022-23. The landlord was awaiting an up to date stock condition survey. A works order had been placed with the relevant contractor.
2. The landlord acquired the block through a merger. It was unable to provide the requested records because the previous landlord failed to retain or hand over the information before it closed. “At this current stage”, the landlord was unable to confirm when the communal areas were last decorated.
3. The landlord was in the process of obtaining quotes for replanting works. A list of available plants would be issued within a week. Relevant contractors had also been contacted about fire compliant sheds. When they responded, the landlord would relay the details to its internal safety team for sign off.
4. The landlord reiterated the sinking fund information from its stage 1 response. It added, a more recent valuation would be available when its accounts were finalised around September 2022. It also reiterated previous comments about chargeable structural assessment works. The landlord said it would set out the next steps to residents within a week.
5. The landlord had responded to the resident’s community centre concerns in full at stage 1. “Moving forward…it must reach out to the area of the business running these ground to see how (it) could decorate the container…”.
6. In line with its previous response, no tree maintenance would be scheduled between April and October (2022) unless the works were urgent. A survey was obtained and the recommended works would be completed later. With leaseholder costs in mind, the landlord would seek comparable quotes.
7. Due to the severity of the carpet issues, the landlord would obtain quotes to recarpet the block. To move matters forward, these works would take place outside of its cyclical programme. The landlord would share its quotes with block residents in due course.
8. In addition to the above commitments, the landlord would hold bi-weekly meetings with its local representative over the next 6 weeks. This would ensure its agreed follow-up actions were progressed accordingly.
Around a week later, the landlord raised a works order for a surveyor’s inspection. Corresponding notes said residents wanted a structural survey because traffic was shaking the block. The order was allocated to the landlord’s asset surveyor.
The resident emailed the landlord on 28 July 2022. She said the block’s residents appreciated the positive steps it was taking. However, the landlord’s negligent failure to fulfil its obligations had caused a noticeable deterioration in the communal area. As a result, they were seeking compensation of £2,000 per household. Further, they felt the landlord should transfer the compensation (£18,000 in total) into the sinking fund. Her other key points were:
1. Structural issues were still a concern. Residents would await the outcome of the condition survey to understand the scale of the problem. Residents were reporting health impacts linked to ventilation issues that caused mould.
2. A silverfish infestation was impacting all the homes in the block. Silverfish were falling from the ceiling and ventilation system. They were also reported in beds and on kitchen appliances.
3. Loud singing and clapping from the community centre was ongoing. It was concerning the landlord felt matters were resolved. The residents deserved to know what disciplinary action had been taken against the centre manager. Given the impact to its residents, the landlord should consider closing the centre until it could control what happened there.
4. Residents were angry with the state of the block and its communal areas. They wanted to pursue legal action. Residents with complex health needs had suffered as a result of the landlord’s negligence.
The landlord replied on 1 August 2022. It said it was unable to comment on ventilation issues since they were not part of the original complaint. However, the landlord’s local representative had been notified and they would investigate accordingly. Though it was unable to close the community centre, the landlord said, a warning had been issued to parties that used it and the situation would be monitored. The email contained the following updates:
1. In relation to the garden, the landlord recently visited the block with a contractor. It was awaiting information and would update residents in due course.
2. A structural engineer’s inspection was now being arranged.
3. The was some disagreement among residents over whether a bike shed or a normal shed was needed. The landlord would provide a further update soon.
4. Funding options to decorate the storage container were being explored.
5. Section 20 notices (notices of intent and consultation for leaseholders) had been issued in relation to roofing and carpet works.
The parties exchanged emails the following day. The resident asked the landlord to respond to her request for compensation. In reply, the landlord quoted the compensation wording from its stage 1 response. It said the sinking fund would receive £1,200 for each home in the block at the end of the financial year. However, the resident’s figure was disproportionate because the block had been managed “but on a partial basis”. Further, in line with the lease agreement, leaseholders were obliged to contribute towards major works. The resident replied £12,000 (in total) was the minimum acceptable settlement.
Further emails were exchanged on 5 September 2022. The landlord said its recent compensation comments were based on a misinterpretation of its stage 1 response. As a result, it wanted to clarify that its compensation award amounted to £1,200 in total, or £150 per household. It said this calculation was based on a 50% refund of the management fees for the years 2020-21 and 2021-22. It apologised for any confusion caused. The landlord’s email was issued by its stage 1 complaint handler.
The resident replied the landlord had failed to honour the negotiation conducted by its appointed leader at stage 2. Further, it was unacceptable their offer had been withdrawn. She felt the landlord was not interested in reaching a reasonable settlement. On that basis, she said, the block’s residents would approach the Ombudsman and seek legal action.
The resident updated the Ombudsman by email on 14 September 2022. She said the landlord’s stage 1 response was delayed without her prior agreement. Specifically, she said she was offered £50 in personal compensation to accept a delay. However, she refused but the response was ultimately delayed anyway. Further, no real progress had been made because the stage 2 response lacked a measurable action plan.
In addition, she said, the landlord’s stage 2 compensation offer was unfairly withdrawn in a manner that was contrary to procedural fairness. This was on the basis handing matters back to the stage 1 complaint handler defeated the purpose of an independent review at stage 2. Overall, she felt the landlord’s complaints process was flawed and procedures were not followed. Further, though it acknowledged the estate had been mismanaged, the landlord was failing to assume responsibility.
During internal correspondence on 20 September 2022, the landlord’s asset surveyor shared their report about cracking to the block’s external porch. The Ombudsman has not seen a copy of this report. Nevertheless, subsequent events suggest they felt a more specialist assessment was needed.
Later that month, a local MP wrote to the landlord on the resident’s behalf. Their email said the block’s residents reported various concerns including: a door entry system that was defective for around 2 years, health impacts relating to damp and mould, and issues with the community centre. For example, it said a coffin had been seen at the centre and residents were concerned it lacked the relevant permissions to hold funeral services. The MP said the landlord should investigate and update them in due course.
The landlord replied to the MP on 4 October 2022. It said the concerns referenced in their email had been logged as a complaint and it would respond within 10 working days. The landlord emailed the MP 10 days later. The email wording suggests its previous stage 1 and 2 responses were attached, along with a separate letter to the MP. Though the letter briefly addressed the resident’s more recent concerns, it shows they were not handled as a formal complaint. For example, the letter did not include any escalation rights.
On 16 November 2022 a specialist contractor completed a visual inspection of the block. The inspection report, dated “December 2022”, said it was built on clay soil and there was a risk of foundation movement due to soil “shrinkage”. Further, the “redundant porch structure” was showing “signs of settlement”. This was on the basis there was “cracking at the junction indicative of downward movement”. The main points were:
1. It was likely the main structure of the block was “founded on deep or piled foundations”. In contrast, “ the porch structure (was) probably on a very shallow foundation…”.
2. On that basis, “some differential movement between the two structures was inevitable”. However, it was not clear why a “movement joint” was not incorporated into the block’s design.
3. It was possible clay soil below the porch had dried out causing the downward movement. Another possible explanation was “over wetting” due to escaped water from a nearby drain. Further investigation, by way of a “trial pit”, was needed to confirm the cause of the movement.
4. Without further investigation, the contractor was unable to determine the scope of the required remedial works. It recommended a CCTV drain survey and “a full site investigation”.
In internal correspondence on 22 November 2022, the landlord said the block was a category 2 priority for cyclical works based on “Doors/Windows (and) Canopy Issue”. Further, it was “tracking the block” as part of its planning for the period between 2023 and 2026. However, its priorities for the 2023-24 programme year were still under discussion. As a result, it was unable to confirm if the block would feature in this programme. The email also said the date in the landlord’s 2018 condition survey was for “guidance purposes”.
Further internal correspondence on 6 February 2023 said the block was not scheduled to feature in that year’s programme. This was on the basis the landlord had “a number of other properties in a poorer condition…”. However, it expected to include the block in its 2024-25 programme instead. The landlord said the situation could change if there were any late omissions from its 2023-24 programme. In other words, it would keep the block in mind if unexpected changes presented it with spare capacity. Since the 2023-24 programme would be finalised around mid-March 2023, it said, it would check on the block then.
In a follow up email the next day, the landlord added a “condition survey/validation” had not been completed for the block yet. As a result, it hoped the resident had not been told it was due to be included in a specific programme. Further, programme works would include decorations and repairs to the “external envelope of the building”, the internal communal areas, and any major component repairs or replacements including windows and roofs. However, gardening works were not included and programme inclusion was dependent on the sinking fund containing sufficient reserves.
The landlord provided an update document dated 9 February 2023. From the information seen, it was unclear whether it was an internal update, or if the document was also issued to the block’s residents. It addressed multiple issues including cyclical works, CCTV and silverfish. In relation to the issues raised in the resident’s formal complaint, the key points were:
1. The landlord received carpet samples in 2022 and issued them to residents. Since then, it had “constantly chased” contractors for quotes. Though it was able to obtain some estimates, at least 2 responses were still outstanding.
2. A garden shed had been specified and costed. Metal and timber versions were available for the same price (this wording suggests the landlord was awaiting a decision).
3. The landlord had obtained quotes for a water butt. However, it was considering whether external taps linked to one of the block’s ground floor properties could be used to water the plants.
In late March 2023, the landlord issued formal notices of intention for painting and carpeting works to the block’s communal area. The notices said it considered the works necessary to comply with its repairing obligations, and to ensure the block was maintained to an appropriate standard.
The Ombudsman has seen additional action plans from April and May 2023. Both addressed around 9 separate issues. The information seen indicates the landlord shared these plans with the resident. The relevant points from the landlord’s May 2023 plan were:
1. Several carpet quotes had been received, along with an estimate for painting works. More painting quotes were needed before the landlord could proceed. The resident had recommended some contractors herself.
2. The landlord had received a new quote for general garden works. Since it was over the Section 20 limit, a leaseholder consultation would be required. Given the high quotes received by the landlord, residents could arrange a garden shed themselves.
3. The landlord “was pushing” to have the block included in its 2025-26 programme.
4. It was awaiting a contractor quote for a rain water butt. Installation was expected to cost around £100.
In internal correspondence on 23 May 2023, the landlord said, due to cost, it was seeking permission to source an alternative contractor for the additional investigation works recommended in the structural report. It also said, if the landlord’s surveyor declined this permission, a section 20 notice would be needed. Subsequently, on 31 May 2023, the landlord issued a notice of estimates in relation to the carpet works. There was a gap in the evidence at this point.
The landlord updated the Ombudsman on 12 January 2024. It said internal painting works had been completed by a contractor the resident had sourced. Further, the parties had inspected the works together and the resident was satisfied. It also said a carpet had been ordered and was due to be installed within the following 6 weeks.
The resident updated the Ombudsman during a phone call on 17 January 2024. In addition to reiterating a number of previous concerns, she said the porch issue was unresolved. She felt this was because the landlord wanted to include the repairs in its 2024-25 cyclical works programme. She stressed the landlord’s overall repair costs would have been lower if it had completed the programmed works in 2020 as scheduled. Her other new points were:
1. There were multiple repair visits to the door entry system over the years. The landlord knew the system was defective, so many of them were unnecessary. Residents should not be unfairly charged for avoidable call outs.
2. The landlord had completed a damp and mould survey. However, the operative lacked the correct tools to complete a thorough inspection.
3. The landlord obtained excessive quotes for the painting and carpeting works. As a result, the resident spent considerable time sourcing alternative contractors. Her efforts had reduced costs by thousands of pounds. Given the circumstances, it was unfair for the landlord to charge a full management fee.
4. Noise issues relating to the community centre were resolved and “dodgy” structures had been removed from the grounds. However, the landlord never confirmed what action had been taken against the centre’s management.
5. Overall, the resident wanted the landlord to adhere to the compensation award discussed at stage 2. It was understood she wanted to sell the property based on the landlord’s performance.

Assessment and findings

It is recognised the situation is frustrating for the resident. The timeline shows she has multiple concerns about the landlord’s activities and they span several years. Where the Ombudsman finds failure on a landlord’s part, we can consider the resulting distress and inconvenience. Unlike a court, we cannot establish liability or award damages. In other words, we cannot determine whether the landlord’s actions were negligent. If she wants to pursue these concerns, the resident can seek legal advice.
This assessment was limited to the issues raised during the resident’s formal complaint. Issues that were not addressed through the landlord’s internal complaints procedure were out of scope. Broadly, the Ombudsman did not have sufficient evidence to fairly assess the issues that were raised later in the timeline. These included damp, silverfish and historic door entry issues. The landlord’s response to these issues will be considered in the below assessment of its complaint handling.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s various concerns about the condition of the block and the landlord’s management

The landlord accepted there were various issues with the block. Its stage 1 response suggests it initially completed repairs to the existing carpet. The timeline shows it ultimately replaced the carpet and completed painting works outside of its cyclical works programmes. From the information seen, it was a reasonable step to bring these works forward. The landlord also accepted it failed to manage the block accordingly prior to the resident’s complaint. On that basis, all block residents were refunded 50% of their management fees for the years 2020-21 and 2021-22.
The resident feels the landlord allowed the block to deteriorate contrary to its repairing obligations. Given the number and type of issues reported, there was some information to support this assertion. For example, the timeline suggests the landlord was slow to respond to various issues, including the bunching carpet. On that basis, arranging a partial refund of its previous management fees was an appropriate step given the circumstances. The information seen suggests the refund was based on a proportionate percentage calculation.
For example, though the resident’s safety concerns were noted, no information was seen to show the block was deemed hazardous by a suitably qualified professional. Nor was any information seen in the lease agreement to show the landlord was obliged to complete cyclical works within a specified timeframe. It was also noted some of the resident’s requested items, such as the garden shed and water butt, appeared to be improvements rather than repairs.
Nevertheless, the timeline suggests there were further issues following the landlord’s compensation award. For example, during its stage 2 response on 13 July 2022 the landlord said it had placed an order to obtain a stock condition survey. However, the landlord’s internal correspondence suggests the survey was still outstanding, around 7 months later in early February 2023. Similarly, the timeline shows the additional structural investigation works recommended by the specialist in mid-November 2022 were still outstanding in May 2023.
The information seen shows the porch is a decorative structure (rather than a functional part of the block). Whilst it was not a confirmed safety issue, it is reasonable to conclude its condition was still a source of concern for residents. This is because the block was reported to shake when heavy vehicles passed. However, the timeline suggests the landlord has made limited progress with the porch. For example, CCTV drain surveys are typically a standard type of inspection for a landlord to arrange. However, at the time of this assessment, no information was seen to show the landlord had obtained one.
Similarly, there was no indication that cost concerns prompted the landlord to explore alternative mitigation options. For example, there was no evidence to suggest the landlord considered temporary measures to address the reported shaking. Overall, the above points to an inappropriate lack of resolution focus on the landlord’s part. In other words, the evidence shows the landlord failed to demonstrate a sufficient level of proactivity or willingness to resolve matters. Further, it was noted there were delays obtaining carpet quotes, and, after a prolonged period, residents were ultimately advised they could arrange their own shed.
The above shows a pattern of building and estate management issues, including failures to manage timelines/contractors, continued in the years 2022-23 and 2023-24. On that basis, the landlord’s previous compensation award was not sufficient to put things right. As a result, the Ombudsman will order increased compensation that is proportionate to the failures identified. Our order will be broadly equivalent to a further 50% management fee refund for each of the years identified above.
The landlord’s handling of reported issues with the community centre was also considered as part of this complaint point (the landlord’s management). The timeline suggests issues were ongoing for around 4 months between late May and late September 2022. From the information seen, the landlord had significant influence over the community centre. On that basis, the above timeframe supports the above findings concerning the landlord’s lack of resolution focus. Aside from delays, no separate failures were identified in relation to the landlord’s handling of the issue. Any disciplinary action is a matter for the landlord.
In summary, from around mid-June 2022 onwards, the timeline points to an inappropriate lack of resolution focus by the landlord. Its previous compensation award was also disproportionate given the additional failures identified above. Overall, the evidence shows there was maladministration in respect of this complaint point. As mentioned, the Ombudsman is unable to award damages. Though the resident’s preferred compensation figures were noted, there was insufficient evidence to support the corresponding level of impact. Residents are obliged to contribute towards the landlord’s costs.

The landlord’s complaint handling

It is accepted this was a complex complaint involving multiple issues. Further, issues were raised at different points during the timeline. Nevertheless, the timeline points to problems with the landlord’s complaint handling. For example, though the resident declined a related offer of compensation, the landlord should still have apologised for the short delay at stage 1. From the wording of its stage 1 response, it failed to do this accordingly. For clarity, the Ombudsman considers an apology appropriate to address a delay of a couple of days.
More significantly, the timeline suggests that, contrary to its email on 4 October 2022, the landlord failed to respond appropriately to the additional concerns the resident reported through her local MP. Around this time, the resident reported historic concerns about the door entry system, damp and mould, and additional issues involving the community centre, including coffin storage. Given the nature of these concerns, it is reasonable to conclude they warranted a formal response. In addition, the landlord was aware the reported issues were similar to the concerns covered by the resident’s previous complaint.
If the landlord was unsure how to proceed, it should have proactively asked the resident if these concerns amounted to a new formal complaint. It is reasonable to conclude this was preferable to issuing an informal response. Ultimately, the landlord’s approach appears to have caused confusion. For example, in her recent update to the Ombudsman, it was understood the resident felt many of these concerns were covered by her existing complaint. Ultimately, understanding a landlord’s final position is often crucial to an Ombudsman investigation. In this case, the landlord’s final position on the above issues was largely unclear.
We thought carefully about the resident’s procedural fairness concerns. However, it was noted the landlord did not attempt to amend its previous compensation offer at stage 2. Further, subsequent informal discussions between the parties were focussed around the stage 1 compensation wording. Overall, the evidence points to a misinterpretation of the wording by the landlord’s stage 2 handler. From the information seen, it cannot fairly be said that a significant compensation offer was intentionally withdrawn.
Further, the landlord was not obliged to honour a figure it provided in error. In its email on 5 September 2022, the landlord apologised for any confusion caused by the misinterpretation. This was an appropriate step given the circumstances. Given the confusion caused, the landlord could have reasonably considered compensation or a good will gesture. Ideally, the apology should also have been issued by its stage 2 handler. This would have avoided the impression their review was being undermined by a junior handler. Still, the evidence does not support this type of undermining.
Overall, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling. This was largely because the failure to address additional issues appropriately in October 2022 caused a complaint handling delay of around 16 months. It was noted some of the resident’s unaddressed concerns are likely better suited to individual complaints. For example, it is reasonable to conclude damp and mould or door entry issues are likely to impact properties and individuals differently.

The landlord’s record keeping

The timeline also points to issues with the landlord’s record keeping. For example, in its stage 1 response the landlord said it was unable to provide: a survey, risk assessments or a repair history due to the actions of the previous landlord before the merger. Given the significant amount of missing information, this situation was concerning. It is accepted the previous landlord’s actions were beyond the landlord’s control. Nevertheless, the landlord should hold its own post-merger records.
However, no information was seen to show the landlord was able to access the type of information requested by the resident. For example, there was no indication it offered her a chance to review more recent safety, repair and condition information relating to the block. The landlord should ensure the block’s records and safety information are being stored appropriately. It should also comply with reasonable requests from residents to view the information.
It was also noted there was a lack of clear records relating to the community centre. For example, the main evidence of the landlord’s actions came from correspondence between the parties. It is recognised a landlord’s neighbourhood disputes policy is often an appropriate starting point for noise disputes where no breach of tenancy has occurred. Regardless, the landlord should have distinct records to evidence its actions. In this case, no information was seen to show the landlord was appropriately recording events.
A landlord should have systems in place to maintain accurate records of repairs, reports, responses, inspections, and investigations. The Ombudsman’s May 2023 Spotlight On: Knowledge and Information Management (KIM) report confirms good record keeping is vital to evidence the action a landlord has taken and failure to keep adequate records indicates that a landlord’s complaints processes are not operating effectively. Staff should be aware of a landlord’s record management policy and procedures and adhere to these, as should contractors or managing agents.
Given the above, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s record keeping.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s:
1. Response to the resident’s various concerns about the condition of the block and the landlord’s management.
2. Complaint handling.
3. Record keeping.

Reasons

From around mid-June 2022 onwards, the landlord displayed an inappropriate lack of resolution focus. The evidence shows management issues, including failures to manage timelines/contractors, continued from this point. As a result, the landlord’s previous compensation award was not sufficient to put things right for the resident/block residents.
The landlord failed to respond appropriately to additional concerns the resident raised through her MP. The timeline suggests this caused confusion and resulted in a complaint handling delay of around 16 months. It also failed to apologise for a short delay at stage 1.
No information was seen to show the landlord was able to access the type of post-merger information requested by the resident. For example, there was no indication it offered her a chance to review more recent safety, repair and condition information relating to the block. Given the lack of clear records relating to the community centre, there was no evidence it recorded incidents appropriately.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay a total of £2,800 in compensation into the block’s sinking fund within 4 weeks. The compensation comprises:
1. £1,200 to address any distress and inconvenience block residents were caused by the above identified issues with the landlord’s response to the resident’s various concerns about the block’s condition and its management.
2. £1,200 which the landlord previously awarded at stage 1 on 15 June 2022. The landlord is free to deduct this amount if it has already issued a service charge refund.
3. £400 to address any distress and inconvenience caused by the above identified complaint handling failures.
Within 4 weeks, the landlord to update block residents about the ongoing issues from the resident’s complaint. The information seen suggests this includes the porch and the garden. There may also be other issues. The update should confirm the amount of compensation the landlord paid to the block’s sinking fund as a result of the above order.
The landlord’s update should signpost residents to the landlord’s formal complaints procedure. It should confirm residents with concerns about issues such as damp or infestation can raise an individual complaint. The landlord should provide the Ombudsman with a copy of its update letter within 4 weeks.
The landlord should confirm to the resident and the Ombudsman what records are available for the block. The information should include the year the records begin, along with the types of survey and risk assessment stored.
The landlord should provide evidence of compliance with the above orders within 4 weeks.