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

Notting Hill Genesis (NHG) (202214922)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202214922

Notting Hill Genesis

21 July 2023

 

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s:
    1. Offer of compensation for its handling of a window replacement which allowed a leak into the property.
    2. Communication and complaints handling.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of a one-bedroom ground floor flat.
  2. The resident reported ingress of rainwater through a rotten window frame in the property. The resident complained that the landlord completed a substandard repair which allowed more rainwater into the property and caused damage to the resident’s carpet and belongings. The resident also complained about the delay in completing repairs and the lack of communication from the landlord.
  3. In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord acknowledged the poor initial repair. As a resolution, it advised that it would complete the repair and offered the resident compensation of £250. The resident rejected this offer because the repair remained outstanding, she did not feel the compensation reflected the level of distress caused, and the landlord’s communication was poor.
  4. In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord agreed that the level of compensation did not reflect the impact caused by the repair issues and increased its offer of compensation to £400. The resident advised this Service that she felt the level of compensation offered did not reflect the repair issues, or the poor communication and complaint handling by the landlord.
  5. After the resident brought her complaint to this Service, the landlord further reviewed the complaint, acknowledged its failures, and made an increased offer of compensation of £1,250 to the resident. The resident rejected this offer and asked this Service to investigate the complaint.

Assessment and findings

  1. When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its Dispute Resolution Principles. These are high level good practice guidance developed from the Ombudsman’s experience of resolving disputes, for use by everyone involved in the complaints process. There are only three principles driving effective dispute resolution:

a.         Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes;

b.         put things right, and;

c.         learn from outcomes.

  1. The Ombudsman must first consider whether a failing on the part of the landlord occurred, and if so, whether this led to any adverse effect or detriment to the resident. If it is found that a failing did lead to an adverse effect, the investigation will then consider whether the landlord has taken enough action to ‘put things right’ and ‘learn from outcomes’

The landlord’s offer of compensation following a leak into the property.

  1. The landlord’s repair policy states that it will carry out emergency repairs within 24 hours and routine repairs within 20 working days. The landlord’s compensation policy allows compensation for loss of a living room of 20% of the rent for the period for which it is responsible for the loss. If the loss or severe limitation of the room, is for an unreasonable period, the landlord should consider making an additional compensation payment for inconvenience.
  2. The landlord acknowledged its failings in its stage 2 complaint response. It accepted that its response to the repair requests was poor, it accepted that its actions caused distress and inconvenience to the resident, and it accepted that its communication and complaint handling was poor. This investigation will focus on the reasonableness of the level of compensation offered by the landlord and its communication and complaint handling.
  3. It is not clear from the records when the resident initially made the repair request. The landlord states in its stage 2 complaint response that it was in July 2021, but the repair records note that it opened a repair case on 20 August 2021. An out of hours operative attended and noted that the “window frame rotted away so when it’s raining it’s coming through and running down the walls. Please arrange for a carpenter to attend to repair/change frame as soon as possible.” If the landlord carried out the repair in line with its routine repair policy, the repair should have been complete by 20 September 2021.
  4. The landlord replaced the window frame on 5 November 2021. This was a delay of 46 days. This was an unreasonable timeframe, and the landlord did not adhere to its repair policy.
  5. On 7 November 2021, the resident complained that the landlord did not fit the window frame properly. She stated that large portions at the top of the window frame were exposed to the outside. On 17November 2021, the resident raised a further complaint with the landlord about the repair. The resident complained that gaps around the window allowed rainwater and a draft into the property which caused damp on the walls and floor. The resident used duct tape to cover the gaps until the contractors returned to make good the repairs.
  6. The landlord conducted a site visit on 30 November 2021. It noted the poor state of the window repair and advised it would instruct a new contractor to return and repair the window. This was an appropriate action for the landlord to take after it identified the poor repair, however, it should have considered a temporary repair at this stage.
  7. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 3 December 2021. It apologised for the delay in assessing the poor repair and as a resolution advised it would carry out the repairs. It also offered compensation of £250 compromising; £150 inconvenience and stress, £50 delay in complaint handling and, £50 poor complaint handling. This was a reasonable and appropriate initial response by the landlord; however, it delayed in carrying out the repair.
  8. On 10 December 2021, the resident emailed the landlord and advised she did not feel the level of compensation reflected the distress caused to her. She felt the landlord was not responsive to her repair requests. She complained about the delay since the initial repair request and that the landlord still had not visited the property to complete a temporary repair. As such, water still penetrated her home. She advised that water was pouring down the walls and puddling in the carpet. She had to dispose of carpet and books.
  9. The landlord did not take any action in response to this complaint until it began a repair in March 2022. This was unfair and unreasonable. The landlord should have carried out a temporary repair until it was able to complete the repairs properly and it should have contacted the resident to assess the property damage caused by the leak. This caused distress and inconvenience to the resident.
  10. The landlord’s repair records note that the further repair was open on 21 March 2022 and the resident advised that the repair began on 28 March 2022.
  11. The landlord’s failings allowed rainwater and a draft to penetrate the property since 20 September 2021, when the initial repair should have been complete, until 28 March 2022, when the landlord began the second repair. This was a period of 27 weeks, which included the winter months. The resident advised that she attempted a temporary repair using duct tape, but the leak still caused damp and she ran a humidifier at her own expense, and a draft left her property cold. This was an unreasonable delay, and the landlord did not consider the detriment caused to the resident by the delay when calculating its compensation offer.
  12. In its stage 2 response, the landlord accepted that the original offer of compensation was not appropriate. It made an increased offer of £400 compromising; £100 for stress and inconvenience, £100 for service failure, £100 for right to repair, and £100 for its delay in complaint handling.
  13. It was appropriate for the landlord to review the compensation and make an increased offer, however, the offer of compensation was unreasonable. It did not consider the damage to the resident’s property, the offer for stress and inconvenience did not reflect the detriment caused to the resident, and the offer for its lack of communication and delay in complaint handling was insufficient.
  14. This Service finds that there was maladministration in the landlord’s offer of compensation following a leak in the property.
  15. On 20 March 2023, after the resident brought her complaint to this Service, the landlord made an increased offer of £1,250 compromising; £400 for service failure, £350 for complaint handling, £100 for right to repair and £400 for stress and inconvenience.
  16. This Service recognises that the landlord reviewed the complaint after the resident brought her complaint to this Service, and made an improved offer, which demonstrated learning. However, because it increased the offer after the complaint was duly made, reasonable redress is not an outcome that this Service can consider. This is because the landlord should have thoroughly reviewed its compensation at stage 2.
  17. This Service does however consider the landlord’s revised offer to be reasonable. It considered the initial service failure, the detriment to the resident, and the communication and complaint handling. This Service orders the landlord to re-instate its offer of £1,250 to the resident.

The landlord’s communication and complaint handling

  1. The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints policy. At stage 1, the landlord will investigate and respond to the resident within ten working days. If the resident remains dissatisfied the complaint can be escalated to stage 2. A manager who was not involved in the stage 1 complaint will review the complaint and contact the resident within two working days. After this they will provide a formal written response within 20 working days. If the resident remains dissatisfied, they can escalate the complaint to the relevant Ombudsman.
  2. When the resident brought her complaint to this Service, as a resolution she wanted the landlord to improve its communication processes. The resident felt that the landlord was not responsive to her repair request and not responsive to her complaint.
  3. On 7 November 2021 and 17 November 2021, the resident complained to the landlord that the window installation was poor, and that the landlord was not responsive to her request to resolve the issue.
  4. On 3 December 2021, the landlord emailed its stage 1 response to the resident. It confirmed that it had visited the property, it agreed that the repairs were substandard and as a resolution it advised it would complete the repairs. The complaint response was not within its timescale of ten working days, however, the landlord acknowledged this and offered £50 for the delay in complaint handling. Despite the delay, this was a good initial response to the resident’s complaint.
  5.  On 10 December 2021, the resident emailed the landlord and advised that she remained dissatisfied and requested the landlord to escalate the complaint to the next stage. The landlord should have provided its stage 2 complaint response by 13 January 2022. The resident chased a reply twice and on 25 January 2022, the landlord replied to the resident and confirmed that it escalated the complaint to stage 2. This was an unreasonable timeframe to escalate the complaint, and the landlord did not adhere to its complaints policy.
  6. Between 25 January 2022 and 28 June 2022, there are several internal notes stating that the landlord needed more time to provide a stage 2 response to the resident. It is not clear from the evidence why the landlord needed more time, and it did not communicate its requirement for more time to the resident.
  7. On 28 June 2022, the landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response. This was a delay of 166 days. This delay was unreasonable, and it delayed the resident in bringing her complaint to this Service. This Service recognises that the landlord appropriately considered this failure in its compensation offer to the resident after the complaint was brought to this Service for investigation.
  8. This Service finds that there was maladministration with the landlord’s communication and complaint handling. This is because it failed to escalate the complaint and provide its complaint responses within the timescales set out in its policy. It also failed to effectively communicate with the resident throughout the repair and complaint process.
  9. This Service recommends that the landlord train its staff in line with its complaints policy to ensure that complaints are identified, responded to, and escalated within the appropriate timescales. If it has not already done so, it should refer to the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code for guidance.
  10. This Service recommends that the landlord review its communication processes for updating its residents on repairs affecting their properties.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration with the landlord’s offer of compensation following a leak into the property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration with the landlord’s communication and complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. It is ordered that the landlord, within 28 days of the date of this determination, re-instate its compensation offer of £1,250 to the resident.
  2. The landlord should provide evidence to this Service that it has complied with the above order within four weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord train its staff in line with its complaint policy to ensure that complaints are identified, responded to, and escalated within the appropriate timescales. If it has not already done so, it should refer to the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code for guidance.
  2. It is recommended that the landlord review its communication processes for updating its residents on repairs affecting their properties.