Notting Hill Genesis (NHG) (202220786)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202220786

Notting Hill Genesis (NHG)

21 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 the landlord’s:
1. Handling of repairs to the fence and gate.
2. Handling of the resident’s claim for stolen goods.
3. Complaint handling.

Background

The resident’s daughter has assisted her throughout the case. With the aim of simplifying the report both will be referred to as the resident.
The resident has been a secure tenant of the landlord since 22 January 1996. The property is a 3-bedroom house that she lives in with her daughter.
In September 2022 the resident texted the landlord asking it to check her fence. On 25 October 2022 she texted again to say the fence and gate were getting bad and the gate was not safe. She sent an additional text on 11 November 2022 and informed it that the security at the back of her home was at high risk. The wood needed to be put back in place to allow the gate to close and be locked.
On 14 November 2022, the resident sent a text to the landlord to tell it that she had been burgled. She had property stolen and had notified the police.
The landlord visited the property on 14 November 2022 and carried out repairs to the fence and gate.
Burglars accessed the resident’s garden again on the 18 November. More of her goods were stolen and the police were notified.
On 8 December 2022, the resident raised a complaint, she included the following points:
1. The gate and fence had been faulty since July 2020, which had left her property insecure.
2. Multiple repair requests had been closed without being actioned.
3. Her property had been burgled on two separate occasions and goods stolen from her garden and shed.
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 20 December 2022. It said:
1. It had attended her property on numerous occasions since July 2020 to carry out repairs to the fence and gate.
2. In response to her report of a break in on 14 November 2022 the landlord had raised an emergency repair and completed the required work on the same day.
3. It does not reimburse for loss of goods. However, in recognition of the stress caused by the situation it offered a goodwill gesture of £250.00.
4. To properly investigate her question about it closing repairs cases it would need the resident to provide specific examples.
5. It had closed a subsidence case as the landlord’s asset team did not think the property was experiencing subsidence.
On 28 December 2022, the resident emailed the landlord in relation to its stage 1 response. She stated:
1. The stage 1 response was wrong, she had not accused the landlord of not attending to conduct the repairs to the fence or gate. Her point was that it had been slow to respond, and the repairs attempts ineffectual. She disputed the reference to work undertaken in August 2020, March 2021 and July 2021 had made the gate safe.
2. The complaint response did not acknowledge that she had reported that the gate was unsafe on 25 October 2022 or 11 November 2022 before she got burgled on 14 November 2022.
3. The landlord had shown poor judgement and negligence in relying on photographs as evidence that the fence/gate was secure. If it had been secure as the landlord had said, the burglary would not have happened.
4. Since the second burglary she had secured the fence and gate herself with new locks and bolts. Preventing the gate and fence from being opened/accessed from the outside. The landlord’s contractors had failed to provide this solution in a period of 2 years.
5. She was not seeking compensation for loss of goods. She was seeking compensation for the actions of the landlord which had led to the loss of goods as well as the emotional distress and mental health issues that the resident and her daughter had suffered.
6. She was unhappy with the stage 1 investigation. The landlord had not acknowledged that its actions had been responsible for the burglary at the property. The offer of £250 compensation was insufficient as it did not compensate her for the items stolen. She also questioned the impartiality of the officer conducting the investigation.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request on 11 January 2023 and issued its stage 2 response on 21 February 2023. It listed the following points:
1. It acknowledged there had been service failure. It had repeatedly attempted to repair the gate and fence. In this case the number of failed repairs indicate a decision to replace the gate and fence should have been considered earlier.
2. The repairs to the fence and lock were not raised as emergency repairs and were completed within the timeframe of 20 working days. It was correct to raise them as non-emergency repairs otherwise they would have been made safe but not repaired.
3. Items left in the garden or shed were the resident’s responsibility. She could claim for stolen items through its insurance team via the email address, which it had provided.
4. The landlord was not normally responsible for the security of gardens. However, as her garden was a corner plot that backed onto a road it should have prioritised the replacement of the gate and lock.
5. It offered the following compensation:
  1. £750 for the service failure associated with the delay in replacing the fence and gate lock.
  2. £100 for the late response to the complaint.
  3. £300 as a goodwill gesture toward the additional locks she had put in place.
The resident emailed the landlord in relation to its stage 2 response. She said:
1. The repairs guide sent with the stage 2 response states that fences were the responsibility of the landlord. It was disheartening to hear that the landlord is still of the opinion that the stolen goods are her responsibility despite it not having conducted an effective repair on the fence.
2. She would like an explanation why the landlord closed cases associated with repairing the fence without repairs taking place.
3. Why had the landlord now increased the compensation by £450.
4. She requested confirmation that she could still pursue an insurance claim for the stolen goods if she accepted the compensation.
On 27 February 2023, the landlord responded to the resident’s email with the following points:
1. It had not replaced the fence because the repairs team considered it was repairable.
2. Jobs could be closed on the system for a number of reasons including being passed to a different department, being cancelled because of duplication, or being dealt with under a different reference number. It could also close jobs if contractors had not shown an interest.
3. It had offered the additional £450 to cover the cost of the lost goods. However, after discussion with the resident it realised this amount would not be enough and that it would have to go through their insurance provider.
4. The insurance claim would not affect the offer of compensation.
The landlord confirmed in an email to the resident on 03 March 2023 That the amount of compensation it was offering was £1,175, comprised of:
1. £750 for distress caused.
2. £25 for late response at stage 1.
3. £100 for the late response at stage 2.
4. £300 as a good will gesture.
The resident contacted the landlord’s insurance team on 22 March 2023 Detailing the particulars of the lost goods and their monetary value. The landlord confirmed on 27 March 2023 that it had passed her claim to its insurers.
The landlord’s insurers contacted it on 18 April 2023 regarding the claim. They said that the landlord had prejudiced the claim by accepting fault for the issues with the gate and fence. Because of this it could not provide a resolution to the resident’s claim. They advised the landlord would have to agree a sum of compensation with the resident to resolve the matter.
The resident informed this Service on 29 February 2023 that she had not received any compensation and the landlord had not contacted her about the insurance claim.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the gate and fence

Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 requires landlords to keep in repair, the structure and exterior of the property. The landlord’s responsive repairs policy confirms it is responsible for fences and garden walls. The policy lists 2 relevant repair categories, emergency and routine. With emergency repairs the landlord aims to attend within 4 hours and all further work (within reason) completed within 24 hours. The timeframe for routine repairs is 20 working days from the date of the report. One of the examples given in the responsive repairs policy as an emergency repair is “the property is not secure”.
The landlord has a responsibility under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS), introduced by The Housing Act 2004, to assess hazards and risks within its rented properties. A property that is not secure can result in the presence of a category 1 or 2 hazard. The principle underlying the HHSRS is that any residential premises should provide a safe healthy environment for any potential occupier or visitor. To satisfy this principle, the landlord must ensure the dwelling is free from both unnecessary and avoidable hazards.
The landlord has submitted repair records as part of its evidence, which show repairs to the gate as far back as July 2020. In the additional notes section of the repair record for 25 August 2020 the following is written “it needs a new post and gates, there are 2 wooden gates”. There is no evidence to show that the landlord acted on the recommendations of its operative, which was unacceptable. The next repair record on 29 March 2021 made a request for the landlord to replace a fence panel due to the original one being broken by burglars. The record also stated: “please go ASAP to make the customer feel safe again”. There were 5 additional records that detail patch and mend repairs, before the resident was burgled on 14 November 2022.
A community crime commission report on the landlord’s website indicated that respondents viewed burglary as their second highest priority in the borough. Burglary was also listed as a priority for the borough’s community safety partnership. After the burglary in March 2021 the landlord should have conducted an assessment of the fence and gate to establish what was required to maintain a secure space around the resident’s property. It should have also reconsidered the recommendations in the previous report to replace the gates. Its failure to take these actions was unacceptable.
The resident’s text to the landlord on 11 November 2022 clearly stated that the current defects to the fence and gate had left the rear of her property at high risk. Given the landlord’s strategic view on burglary in the borough, the history of the property and the information provided by the resident, its failure to take emergency action was significant. The Ombudsman disagrees with the landlord’s position in the stage 2 response that it was right to raise the request as a responsive repair. This allowed the landlord 20 days to attend, which would have left the property vulnerable in that period. The report from the resident, that the back of her property was at high risk, met the definition of an emergency repair. The landlord should have classed her report as an emergency repair. This would have resulted in a visit within a short timeframe to secure the property. The landlord could then have scheduled any additional works as responsive repairs to provide long term security as required.
The HHSRS states that the risk of entry by intruders increases with reduced levels of security. The landlord’s ‘patch and mend’ approach to the repairs left the property vulnerable, which was a factor in the burglary. The burglary has caused ongoing emotional stress, anxiety and sleepless nights for the resident and her daughter. They also fear entering the garden at night. The landlord missed an opportunity to support the resident and ensure she was able to benefit from the peaceful enjoyment of her home. Overall, the Ombudsman finds that there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the repairs to the resident’s fence and garden.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s claim for stolen goods.

The landlord’s compensation policy references the actions that staff must take when considering loss of goods in a liability claim. Due to the strict handling requirements of liability claims, its staff must signpost residents to its insurance team. It repeated this instruction in its complaint handling policy.
The landlord initially told the resident in its stage 1 response that it did not offer reimbursement for stolen goods. While technically this is correct, it should have directed the resident to the insurance team or at the very least discussed it with the insurance team to obtain their advice. Not doing so was a failure to follow its policy.
The landlord’s position then changed at stage 2 of the complaints procedure, where it offered the resident £450 to cover the cost of the stolen goods. It did not make this clear in the complaint response as it had included the additional £450 to the distress component of the compensation payment. This only became apparent when queried by the resident. However, when the resident informed the landlord of the actual cost of the stolen goods, it changed its view again. It was only at this point that it signposted the resident to its insurance team. The changing position of the landlord caused confusion and frustration to the resident and delayed her ability to make an insurance claim, which was unreasonable.
In its efforts to be fair and put things right in its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord admitted it should have replaced the fence and gate sooner. The insurer saw this as an admission that prejudiced the claim, which it then refused to consider. The ombudsman can see the difficult position the landlord was in, however, had it sought advice from its insurance team from the beginning it could have avoided this error. Ultimately the landlord caused the resident’s claim to not be considered.
The insurance company informed the landlord on 18 April 2023 of this fact and advised that it would have to resolve the claim directly with the resident. After the resident made the Ombudsman aware that the insurance claim had not progressed, we asked the landlord why. In its response it gave the reasoning provided by the insurer. However, it did not provide any reason why it had not contacted the resident or taken any action to progress her claim. The landlord’s inaction caused additional delays to the process and extended what was an already stressful and worrying period for the resident. In the Ombudsman’s opinion the landlord’s handling of the resident’s claim for the stolen goods amounts to maladministration.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

The landlord has a 2 stage complaints process. It commits to responding to stage 1 complaints in 10 working days and stage 2 complaints in 20 working days. If it required extra time to complete the complaint it would notify residents. In line with the policy, stage 1 complaints are allocated to the local housing officer.
Both the stage 1 and 2 responses were issued outside of the landlord’s specified time limits. However, the landlord acknowledged this in its stage 2 response and in a follow up email. In recognition of the delays the landlord offered £125 compensation, which was reasonable.
In its stage 1 response the landlord listed the work it had carried out over the years and stated that it did not reimburse for lost goods. It did not apologise or display empathy toward the resident in relation to the burglary. It did not make reference to the resident’s reports that the rear of her property “was at risk of safety” prior to being burgled. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) requires landlords to answer all complaint points, failing to do so leaves residents feeling unheard and frustrated. The stage 1 response did not display fairness in its conclusions or offer compensation which reflected the distress caused to the resident. This was unreasonable and a missed opportunity by the landlord to resolve the complaint at the first stage.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s assertion that it had closed work orders without completing them. However, it asked the resident to provide specific examples that it could check. It repeated this request in an email after the stage 2 response. A landlord should have accurate and comprehensive repair records which allow it to adequately investigate complaints made by residents. It was not the responsibility of the resident to provide this information. It was unreasonable for the landlord to place the burden of proof on her.
In the stage 2 response the landlord apologised and acknowledged it should have replaced the gate and fence sooner. In its attempts to put things right it also increased its offer of compensation, which was positive and demonstrated learning, and an awareness of its shortcomings.
The landlord has yet to pay the compensation it had offered to the resident in its stage 2 response. The code requires that proposed remedies are carried through to completion. The landlord did not offer any reason why it had not paid the compensation. The delay of 14 months was unacceptable and caused the resident additional unnecessary frustration. Overall, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme there was maladministration with the landlord’s:
1. Handling of repairs to the fence.
2. Handling of the resident’s claim for stolen goods.
3. Complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to:
1. Provide a written apology to the resident from a senior manager for the failures detailed in this report.
2. Pay the resident £1,575. The compensation must be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any arrears. It is comprised of:
  1. The £1,175 already offered to the resident.
  2. £200 for the distress inconvenience time and trouble associated with the landlord’s handling of the resident’s claim for stolen goods.
  3. £200 for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble associated with the landlord’s complaint handling.
1. The landlord must review the residents repair records and establish if it closed any repair requests without being actioned. If records have been closed the landlord must provide a schedule to the resident and this service. The schedule should detail the repair record, why it was closed and what actions the landlord is going to take to complete the work.

Within 12 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must ascertain the costs of the stolen goods, come to an agreed sum with the resident to replace those goods and make payment of that sum.