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

Notting Hill Genesis (NHG) (202217131)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202217131

Notting Hill Genesis

20 September 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:
    1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for information about her service charges.
    2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the frequency and standard of cleaning in the communal areas of the property.
    3. The landlord’s complaints handling.

Background

  1. The resident occupies the property, which is a two-bedroom flat, under an assured tenancy agreement with the landlord. The resident pays an annual variable service charge for services provided by the landlord.
  2. In December 2020, the landlord organised a deep clean of the communal areas of the property, which was only partially completed, and agreed to cover the cost. Following consultation with residents, the landlord confirmed that it would arrange for regular cleaning of the communal areas to take place every two months from April 2022. The landlord wrote to the resident on 21 December 2021 to confirm that the cost of the communal cleaning would be recovered from residents via the service charge, noting that the cost of the pre-contract deep clean would be split between residents. The pre-contract deep clean did not take place until February 2022.
  3. The resident complained to the landlord about its management of the service charge over the past two years. She stated that residents had been charged for a one-off deep clean of the communal areas in December 2021, which had not taken place and that the landlord had previously committed to pay for. She also noted that the regular communal cleaning had not taken place in April and June 2022 as advised. She stated that the landlord had failed to adhere to its obligations under the lease and to adequately monitor its contractor. Following the communal clean in August 2022, the resident complained to the landlord about the standard of cleaning carried out at that visit.
  4. The landlord confirmed that there had been errors in the service charge and that the resident had been incorrectly charged for some items, including graffiti removal, bulk refuse removal, legionella testing and tree work. The adjustments would be reflected in the final accounts and credits issued where appropriate. The landlord had covered the cost of a deep clean in December 2020, as agreed, and the further deep clean that took place in February 2022 would be charged to residents, as the landlord had received no complaints. The landlord confirmed that the communal cleans in April and June 2022 had not taken place and would not be charged to residents. The communal clean that took place in August 2022 was not of an acceptable standard and so the contractor reattended in September 2022. One visit would be charged to residents. The landlord confirmed it would attend the next visit to monitor the standard of cleaning.
  5. In its complaint responses the landlord acknowledged and apologised for the errors in the resident’s service charge and accepted that it needed to improve its management of the service charge to ensure that statements are correct. The landlord was communicating with its contractor about the failings relating to the communal cleaning and its staff training programme would be reviewed. It offered the resident £110 compensation for delays in issuing its complaint responses and for the inconvenience caused to the resident by having to chase up errors in her service charges.
  6. The resident continued to dispute the charge December 2021 charge for the deep clean which as undertaken in February 2022, stating that the landlord had committed to pay for it. She also noted that the clean, once completed was of an “appalling standard”. Since the final complaint response, the resident has continued to raise concerns about the standard of cleaning in the communal areas.

Assessment and findings

Scope of Investigation

  1. The resident has disputed a charge to residents for a deep clean of the communal areas that took place in February 2022. The Ombudsman cannot provide a binding determination on whether the resident is liable for this charge. If the resident wishes to dispute individual elements of her service charge, or to challenge her liability to pay her service charge, she can consider making an application to the First Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) (FTT).
  2. As part of the complaint, the resident suggested that other residents within the estate should also be charged for communal cleaning, as they have access to the communal areas. The Ombudsman is unable to comment on the liability of third parties. The resident may consider referring her concerns about the apportionment of her service charge to the FTT.
  3. This investigation has, however, considered how the landlord responded to the resident’s complaint about its management of the service charge, including whether it took reasonable steps to investigate her concerns about liability for individual charges, and whether it provided an appropriate response.

Landlord’s management of the service charge

  1. The landlord’s Service Charge Policy states that it will initially attempt to resolve all service charge issues via its local officer, and that it will “provide residents with clear and concise records.” The landlord notes that complaints about service charge issues can be addressed through its formal complaints process, however, if it is unable to resolve the issue it will encourage residents to refer their concerns to the FTT, where appropriate.
  2. In response to the resident’s complaint, the landlord reviewed its management of the resident’s service charge and identified errors in the calculations for service charge years 2019/20 and 2020/21. The landlord confirmed that the charges had been adjusted and credits issued where necessary, and that this would be reflected in the final accounts for service charge year 2021/22. In its stage 2 response, the landlord apologised for the service charge errors, acknowledging that improvements were required to ensure that service charge statements were accurate. The landlord offered the resident £50 compensation in recognition of the inconvenience caused to her by having to chase up the errors.
  3. The Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord took appropriate steps to investigate the resident’s concerns and, in doing so, it identified several errors. It sought to put things right by ensuring the resident’s service charge account was corrected and the balance adjusted, apologising for its mistakes, acknowledging that service improvement was required and offering financial compensation. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord’s offer of redress was reasonable.
  4. The resident continues to dispute the charge for the deep clean that took place in February 2022. The resident states that during a meeting, the landlord committed to meet the cost of the deep clean. The landlord states that it met the cost of the deep clean in 2020, as promised, but that it did not agree to pay for the pre-contract deep clean.
  5. The Ombudsman must reach its decisions based on the documentary evidence provided to it. The landlord has provided a copy of a letter sent to the resident on 21 December 2021, which states that the cost of the communal deep clean will be split between residents. There is no documentary evidence that the resident disputed this prior to the clean taking place in February 2022, or that this issue was raised prior to her formal complaint of 9 June 2022. The Ombudsman cannot therefore conclude that the landlord failed to pay for the deep clean and that this was incorrectly charged to residents. Based on the evidence shown to this investigation, the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the charge for the deep clean was reasonable.

Frequency and standard of cleaning

  1. The landlord’s Estate Management Policy confirms that it is responsible for ensuring that cleaning of the communal areas is undertaken regularly. It also states that where services are provided, it will “ensure the common parts are inspected, kept clean, safe and secure and are regularly maintained and promptly repaired.” Inspections will be carried out “on a regular basis to ensure cleaning … standards.”
  2. Where a resident raises concerns about the standard of cleaning completed by a contractor, the landlord will “raise the matter with the responsible contractor and request they correct the failing within a specified period.” It will also, “work proactively with residents and contractors to resolve issues and concerns as quickly as possible and will monitor progress to ensure that the issue is resolved.” Where there are major concerns or frequently raised issues, the landlord may take additional action in line with the terms of the contract.
  3. According to the evidence provided to this Service, the resident first raised concerns about the regular communal cleaning contract in her formal complaint of 9 June 2022. She stated that the cleans scheduled for April and June had not been carried out as promised. The landlord referred the resident’s concerns to its contractor, in line with the terms of its Estate Management Policy. The contractor confirmed that cleaning had not taken place in April and June, and so would not be charged, which the landlord reported to the resident in its stage 1 response. The landlord’s response to the initial complaint was reasonable, proportionate and in line with its policies and procedures.
  4. Communal cleaning then took place in August 2022 and photos of the completed clean were provided to the landlord. The resident complained to the landlord about the standard of cleaning and this complaint was forwarded to the contractor. It then returned in September to carry out an additional clean.
  5. On each occasion that the resident reported concerns about the communal cleaning, the landlord followed up with its contractor to ensure residents were not charged for cleans that did not take place or were not completed to an acceptable standard. However, there is no evidence that the landlord had a system in place for monitoring its contractor’s performance, beyond receiving photos and a task sheet for completed jobs. In particular, there is no evidence that regular inspections were taking place, as required under its policy. This was particularly significant following the August 2022 clean, given the history of complaints about the standard of service.
  6. In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord committed to attend the clean that was due to take place in October 2022, and it invited the resident to attend to confirm she was happy. This demonstrates that the landlord recognised that a more direct approach to monitoring its contractor was required and that it understood that it was appropriate to be more proactive about seeking the resident’s views.
  7. The landlord could have been more proactive about monitoring its contractor following the initial complaint, which may have prevented its escalation. However, overall, the Ombudsman considers that the landlord took reasonable steps to resolve the situation. The Ombudsman will not make a finding of service failure where a landlord has taken appropriate action to address the resident’s concerns.

Complaints handling

  1. The landlord’s Complaints Policy in use at the time of the complaint states that it operates a two-stage complaints process. At stage 1, a response should be provided within 10 working days. The local officer will investigate the complaint and the response will be reviewed by a manager before it is sent out. At the review stage, the complaint will be investigated by a manager who was not involved in the original decision and “at least one independent manager” from another part of the landlord’s organisation. The review response should be provided within 20 working days.
  2. The landlord has acknowledged that there was a delay in providing both the stage 1 and 2 complaint responses. It offered a total of £60 compensation in respect of the delays. This was in line with the amounts set out in its Compensation Policy and the Ombudsman considers that this amount was proportionate to reflect the impact on the resident.
  3. The resident complained that the landlord failed to escalate the complaint to the review stage and stated that complaints should not be investigated by people within the landlord’s organisation. The landlord provided a stage 1 response on 29 July 2022, which it has acknowledged was in excess of its timescales. The resident sent two letters to the landlord stating that her complaint should be escalated to the review stage. It is not known on what date these letters were sent. The resident referred to the landlord’s letter of 21 September 2021. A copy of that letter has not been provided to this investigation.
  4. The evidence provided to this investigation shows that the resident’s initial complaint was made on 9 June 2022. This was logged as a new complaint. It was therefore appropriate for the landlord to respond at stage 1 of its complaints process. Following escalation, the landlord sought input from two independent reviewers from within its organisation and their comments and recommendations were taken into account in the final complaint response. The Ombudsman considers that the landlord acted in accordance with its Complaints Policy. The Ombudsman would not expect a landlord to routinely obtain input from an independent person outside its organisation unless this was required under its policies and procedures.
  5. The Ombudsman considers that the landlord has provided sufficient redress to the resident for the failings identified in its complaints handling.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress to the resident that, in the Ombudsman’s view, satisfactorily resolves the complaint about its management of the resident’s service charge.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, the Ombudsman considers that there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint about the frequency and standard of cleaning.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress to the resident that, in the Ombudsman’s view, satisfactorily resolves the complaint about its complaints handling.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that, if it has not already done so, the landlord reviews its processes for monitoring its communal cleaning contractor and ensures that regular inspections are undertaken to review its performance, with input sought from residents.