Notting Hill Genesis (NHG) (202218440)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202218440

Notting Hill Genesis (NHG)

27 March 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:
1. The landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s property.
2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property.
3. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident lives in a 3-bedroom first floor flat. She moved into the property through mutual exchange on 6 December 2021. The landlord advised that it recorded that the resident had several medical conditions.
The resident initially reported repairs with the property shortly after moving in.
The resident complained to the landlord on 22 December 2021 about delays to the mutual exchange process and repair issues in the property.
The landlord issued a stage 1 complaint response on 11 January 2022. In summary it said:
1. The mutual exchange was delayed by 4 months due to staff absences.
2. Some of the repairs highlighted by the resident had not been previously raised and the landlord did not have the opportunity to resolve them.
3. The landlord completed a home visit on 16 December 2021. It identified outstanding repairs in her property and advised these would be booked in.
4. It offered £150 compensation for delays to the mutual exchange process and inconvenience caused.
Over the following 6 months, the landlord completed repairs. During this time, the resident did not chase up the landlord.
On 28 July 2022, the resident advised the landlord that she was dissatisfied with the poor condition of her property when she moved in and that repairs remained outstanding. She added that there was damp and mould in her property.
On 16 October 2022, the resident chased the landlord for her stage 2 response.
The Housing Ombudsman Service contacted the landlord on 14 December 2022 and requested it to respond to the resident’s complaint.
The landlord issued a stage 2 complaint response on 7 February 2023. In summary it said:
1. It completed several repairs in the resident’s property. A surveyor attended on 6 January 2023 to assess outstanding issues.
2. It apologised that the resident had not received a response to her complaint. The landlord offered the resident £250 for its complaint handling failings.
3. The standard of finish for some repairs was below the expected standard. It offered £100 compensation for this.
4. Its communication with the resident had been below the expected standard as the resident had different housing officers since moving. It offered £100 compensation for this.
The resident referred her complaint to the Ombudsman on 6 December 2023. She was dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of the repairs and said that damp and mould in the property affected her health.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The resident informed the landlord of the health issues she experienced, which she says are as a result of the condition of her property. This investigation is unable to determine a causal link between these and the landlord’s actions. Often when there is a dispute over whether a health issue has been caused or made worse, the courts rely on expert evidence in the form of a medico-legal report. This will give an expert opinion of the cause or deterioration of a condition. Without that evidence, the Ombudsman is not able to draw any conclusions on whether the resident’s health has been affected by the way in which the landlord handled the reports of damp within her home. This question may be better for the courts to decide, where an expert can be cross examined during a live hearing.
Following the landlord’s final response, the resident reported new matters to the landlord including (but not limited to) fumes from a radiator and issues with bed bugs. As these matters were raised to the landlord after its stage 2 final response, and there is no evidence that a complaint about these issues has exhausted the complaints procedure, the Ombudsman will not consider these matters as part of this investigation. The assessment will focus on matters raised in the resident’s complaint in December 2021 up until the landlord’s final response on 7 February 2023.
The resident did not escalate her complaint about the landlord’s handling of her mutual exchange application to stage 2. Therefore, as the matter has not exhausted the landlord’s complaints process the Ombudsman will not consider the landlord’s handling of this or the reasonableness of the £150 compensation offer made in relation to this.

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s property.

The landlord’s repairs responsibility handbook outlines that it is it responsible for the structure of residents’ homes. This includes the roof, walls, doors, and windows. It adds it will attend to inside walls, floors, skirting boards, air vents, window frames and catches.
The landlord’s repairs policy classifies an emergency repair as one which presents an immediate danger or risk to the resident. These should be attended to within 4 hours to make the matter safe, and the repair should be completed within 24 hours. Standard repairs will be completed within 20 working days from the date of the report. In instances where this cannot be met, it will communicate the amended timeframe to the resident.
The Ombudsman considers it good practice for landlords to complete an inspection before a mutual exchange takes place. If essential works or repairs are required to the property before the move, the landlord should determine whose responsibility these are, and communicate this to the resident.
The landlord did not provide records to confirm whether an inspection of the property took place. This was unsatisfactory. Had the landlord completed an inspection, both parties would have understood what repairs were required at the onset of the mutual exchange.
Given the number of repairs reported and the evidence available, it is difficult to confirm precisely the time taken to complete every repair. However, the Ombudsman has considered the evidence available in relation to the main repairs reported. These will be addressed in turn below.
Shortly after the resident raised initial repair concerns, the landlord completed a home visit on 16 December 2021. It identified repairs and raised work orders including for a hole in a door to be blocked, an extractor fan to be installed in the bathroom, windows to be unsealed, and drains to be unblocked. It was appropriate that the landlord swiftly raised work orders for repairs which were its responsibility.
The landlord completed some repairs outside of its 20-working day timeframe. For example, window adjustments were addressed on 3 February 2022, and the bathroom extractor fan was replaced on 31 March 2022. The delays were not significant. However, best practice would have been for the landlord to contact the resident to update her on the progress.
The landlord responded to the resident’s report of a leak as an emergency and attended on the same day. This was in line with its repairs policy. Upon attendance, it identified that the leak originated from a water tank and completed temporary repairs. It recorded the need for the tank to be removed. The landlord cancelled an appointment to complete this on 15 January 2022 and removed the water tank on 12 April 2022, 4 months after the leak was initially reported. Although the leak was not reported as ongoing during this time, in accordance with the landlord’s policy it should have updated the resident with a reason for the delays and provided an amended date for completion.
The Ombudsman identified further delays for the landlord to identify a plan of action to block the fireplaces in the resident’s bedrooms and living rooms. Similarly, the landlord failed to provide the resident with an explanation for the delay.
The resident raised concerns about damage caused by the leak to her living room, hallway, bedroom, kitchen, and bathroom. She wanted the landlord to redecorate her whole property. In response, the landlord re-plastered and painted areas which were damaged by the leak. However, it set the resident’s expectations and informed her that it was not responsible for completing a full redecoration of the property. This was in line with the landlord’s repair policy which outlines it is the tenant’s responsibility to “maintain internal decoration (except where we are painting to cover an area affected by a leak etc.)”.
As the resident continued to request for her property to be redecorated, the landlord processed a redecoration voucher for the resident which she could use towards purchasing paints and other materials to decorate her property. The Ombudsman considers this an appropriate action to improve the landlord-tenant relationship given her ongoing dissatisfaction.
The Ombudsman identified that the landlord raised and responded to most repairs efficiently within its target timeframes. This included repairs to bathroom taps and replacing flooring.
On 19 January 2023, a surveyor completed a pre-inspection to identify further repair issues in the property and assess the standard of repairs which had already been completed. Given the number of repairs raised, this was good practice.
Within the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response, it identified that the standard of some repairs were not deemed acceptable. This included plastering and boarding up of the fireplaces. It subsequently completed further repairs to address this. There are no records to suggest the resident chased up the landlord about the quality of the repairs. However, the multiple visits would have caused inconvenience to the resident. It was appropriate for the landlord to identify that it had got things wrong in its complaint response and apologise for this. The landlord offered the resident £100 to put things right for poor workmanship. This is deemed an appropriate offer.
Since the final response, the landlord advised the resident that a satisfactory post inspection was carried out on repairs raised by the surveyor. The Ombudsman has not seen a copy of this. However, the resident did not report any outstanding repairs to the Ombudsman. In addition, the landlord added the resident’s bathroom to the renewal programme for 2023-2024 as requested by the resident. Based on the information available, the landlord took appropriate action to address the remaining repairs in the resident’s property.
Overall, although there were some delays for repairs to be completed, the landlord was responsive to most repairs. The landlord quality checked repairs it had completed and put things right for poor workmanship which it identified.
The landlord fell short in its communication with the resident. This was particularly prevalent when the landlord did not complete repairs within its policy timeframes. The landlord acknowledged in its complaint responses that the resident experienced several different housing officers when dealing with the repairs which contributed towards delays in repairs being completed and poor communication. It was appropriate for the landlord to reflect on its shortcomings, identify what went wrong and apologise for this. The £100 compensation offered is considered proportionate to these failings.
Due to the above, the Ombudsman has found reasonable redress regarding the landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s property.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould in her property.

The landlord’s procedure on damp outlines that if there is suspected damp, a local officer should arrange a home visit or proceed to investigate and record the evidence at hand, taking photos where possible. The landlord should consider the following:
1. Whether the walls are visually wet at low level.
2. Whether there are tide marks on the wall.
3. Whether the plaster is deteriorating to the extent it is crumbling.
4. Whether the extractor fans are in working order.
The landlord’s damp and mould policy states that an officer should attend a property where damp or mould is reported within 10 days of receiving a report. During the visit, staff will determine the severity of the issue and where possible the cause. They will also consider any evidence of detrimental impact the damp is having on the resident. The landlord provided the Ombudsman with a damp and condensation tick sheet which it uses when assessing properties.
Records evidence that the resident initially reported damp in her property to the landlord on 28 July 2022. The extent or location of this was not specified. However, the landlord failed to raise an order to address the damp and mould until 31 August 2022. This delay was unacceptable and not in line with the landlord’s policy. It is unclear whether the landlord attended the property on this date as no records with findings were supplied.
The resident subsequently informed the landlord that damp and mould was throughout her property following a historic leak. She informed the landlord on 6 October 2022 that it affected her and her children’s health, particularly her breathing. The landlord raised a work order on 17 October 2022 for a surveyor to attend. However, no records of this visit were maintained. This was insufficient. Moreover, the landlord was unable to evidence it followed the correct procedure or completed a thorough investigation when inspecting the damp and mould.
The resident raised further concerns about damp and mould in her property on 15 November 2022, and again mentioned health issues as a result of this. However, landlord records suggest no further action was taken. This was unacceptable particularly given the prejudicial impact damp and mould can have on residents.
It was unacceptable that the landlord did not respond to the resident’s health concerns. This would have caused her distress and inconvenience. The Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on damp and mould says that landlords should have a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould.
Since the landlord’s final response, repairs were raised to apply a mould wash to damp and mould patches behind the radiator in the bedroom and around the window. However, this repair was subsequently cancelled due to ‘works not required’. There was no further explanation provided. Due to the landlord’s lack of records, it was unable to evidence that it appropriately considered and responded to the resident’s reports of damp and mould. If the landlord took further actions, it should have clearly recorded this.
The landlord recorded on 23 November 2023 that there were no issues with damp. More recently on 19 January 2024, a surveyor completed a joint visit with the Council’s environmental department following a report of disrepair. Following this, the environmental department took no further action, and all parties agreed there was no penetrating damp.
Although recent communications suggest there is no penetrating damp in the property, the Ombudsman is not satisfied that the landlord took sufficient steps prior to this to investigate and respond to the resident’s concerns.
Due to the above, the Ombudsman has identified service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould in her property. It is ordered to compensate the resident £150 for the identified failings.

The landlord’s complaint handling.

The landlord’s complaints policy states that a stage 1 response should be provided within 10 working days and a stage 2 response provided within 20 working days. Although the stage 1 complaint response was timely, there were significant delays of 7 months for the landlord to issue its stage 2 response.
The resident chased up her stage 2 response on 2 occasions. In addition, the Ombudsman asked the landlord to respond on 14 December 2022. It was unacceptable that the landlord did not issue its final response until a further 2 months after this contact. The matter was exacerbated by the landlord failing to update the resident to apologise or provide an explanation for the delay.
Within the resident’s escalation request she raised concerns about damp and mould in her property and continued raising concerns about this throughout the complaints process. It was unreasonable that the landlord did not address this within its stage 2 complaint response. To prevent reoccurrence of this, the landlord should agree with residents the complaint definitions as part of its acknowledgement process. This will ensure the landlord responds to all aspects of residents’ complaints.
In its final response, the landlord acknowledged it should have escalated the resident’s complaint to stage 2 sooner and apologised for the poor communications from the landlord. It offered the resident £250 compensation for its complaint handling failures. The Ombudsman considers this a reasonable offer of compensation to put things right.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was:
1. reasonable redress regarding the landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s property.
2. reasonable redress regarding the landlord’s complaint handling.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure regarding the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property.

Orders

The landlord is ordered to compensate the resident £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s failure to appropriately respond to her reports of damp and mould.
The landlord is ordered to consider its current approach to record keeping and consider whether the record keeping systems and processes support a risk-based approach to damp and mould.
The landlord should provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance with the above orders within 4 weeks from the date of this report.

Recommendations

The landlord is recommended to re-offer £450 compensation comprised of:
1. £100 for the landlord’s poor communication and delays to complete repairs.
2. £100 for poor workmanship for repairs.
3. £250 for the landlord’s complaint handling failures.
The landlord is recommended to review the Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on damp and mould.
The landlord is recommended to agree complaint definitions with residents as part of its acknowledgement process to ensure it responds to all aspects of complaints raised.
The landlord is recommended to commence inspections of properties prior to mutual exchanges taking place (if it is not already doing so). This would identify repairs at the onset of the tenancy and clarify repair responsibilities for both the landlord and resident.