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

Notting Hill Genesis (NHG) (202302192)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202302192

Notting Hill Genesis (NHG)

18 April 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s offer of compensation in relation to its handling of the:
    1. Works required to the resident’s front door.
    2. Formal complaint.

Background

  1. The resident occupies a 3-bedroom property as an assured tenant of the landlord, which is a housing association.
  2. The resident first reported that her front door was insecure on 12 October 2022. According to the landlord’s records, contractors attended and replaced the lock. On 18 October 2022, the resident made a further report about the unstable door and asked when it would be replaced as she could barely sleep with worry. She reported to the landlord on 20 October 2022 that contractors had failed to attend a scheduled appointment. The contractors also reported that they had tried to attend on 21 October 2022, but had been unable to gain access.
  3. On 23 October 2022 the resident complained that the contractor had not attended an appointment the previous day and she had received confirmation that the job had been closed. The landlord’s notes state it dealt with this complaint as a ‘quick fix’. The resident complained about the door remaining insecure a further 3 times over the next month, which were all recorded as being dealt with as ‘quick fixes’, but she said the issue remained unresolved.
  4. The resident contacted the Ombudsman to report that the landlord had failed to fix her door and had missed appointments. This Service asked the landlord to provide a formal complaint response by 21 December 2022.
  5. On 5 January 2023 the resident made a further complaint about her front door which was again treated as a ‘quick fix’. The landlord sent a ‘quick fix response’ on 19 January 2023, in which it acknowledged the situation had been a source of huge worry and inconvenience to the resident. It was working to authorize and confirm a timescale for replacing the door and offered £180 compensation for the missed appointments and £50 for the stress and inconvenience caused.
  6. Following a further complaint by the resident on 25 January 2023, which was again treated as a ‘quick fix’, the landlord raised a job for the ‘urgent’ replacement of the door and, as an interim measure, asked that a locksmith attend and secure the door. Contractors attended on 31 January 2023 to carry out an ease and adjustment to the lock.
  7. On 15 February 2023 contractors attended. They measured and submitted an order to the landlord for the replacement door, which was approved on 17 February 2023. The landlord informed the resident of this and said the contractor would contact her to schedule this work. It also offered a further £30 compensation for an additional missed appointment on an unknown date.
  8. On 3 March 2023 the resident made a formal complaint which was logged at stage 1. She was unhappy that the contractors said they were unable to replace the door until mid-April 2023 and about the lack of responsiveness in dealing with the compensation previously offered.
  9. In the landlord’s stage 1 response of 17 March 2023, it acknowledged its response had been delayed and offered £50 compensation for this. It asked the resident to bear with it as the contractors were busy and mid-April 2023 was not that far away. It offered a further £100 for stress and inconvenience. However, the records show that the job for the replacement door was closed on 23 March 2023 and the order for the door and works was not progressed.
  10. The resident contacted the Ombudsman on 18 April 2023 and complained that she had been told by the contractor that the landlord had agreed the order for the replacement door but had later retracted it. The Ombudsman asked the landlord to escalate the complaint and provide a response within 25 working days, by 1 June 2023.
  11. The landlord ultimately issued its final response on 21 July 2023. It apologised for its delay in responding and acknowledged failures in the way it had handled the works and complaint. This was due to a high turnover in housing officers, and a lack of oversight in managing the works and ‘quick fix’ complaints. It offered further compensation of £250 for the delays in progressing the replacement door and £250 for delays in its complaint handling, in addition to the £230 previously offered for distress, inconvenience and missed appointments on 19 January 2023. This totalled £730. It did not include the additional £150 offered in its stage 1 response, or the £30 offered on 17 February 2023.
  12. The door was replaced on 3 August 2023. The resident complained to the landlord that its offer of compensation was not adequate redress for its failings and the impact the situation had on her health. The landlord offered a further £250 for stress and inconvenience, bringing the total offer of compensation to £1,160. The resident remained unhappy with the landlord’s offer and referred her complaint to this Service.

Assessment and findings

Scope of Investigation

  1. The resident submits that the landlord’s handling of the repairs impacted on her health, causing her stress, headaches, and high blood pressure. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s experience, but it is beyond the remit of this Service to determine whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s actions and the resident’s ill-health. She may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if she considers that her health has been affected by any action or failure by the landlord. While the Ombudsman cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced as a result of any service failure by the landlord.

Landlord’s handling of works required to the door

  1. Under the terms of the tenancy and Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (LTA), the landlord is obliged to keep the structure and outside of the home in repair and working order, including the roof, outside walls, doors, windows and windowsills.
  2. The landlord has a ‘responsive repairs policy’ which categorises ‘emergency’ and ‘routine’ repairs. Emergency repairs include where the resident is unable to secure the property and must be attended to within 4 hours. Routine repairs are to be concluded within 20 working days. Inspections might be required where repairs have not resolved the problem. If the landlord is unable to keep to an appointment, the resident will be advised as soon as possible, and an alternative date agreed.
  3. Full details of the nature of the resident’s early reports about the door, and the landlord’s actions, are not clear from the evidence provided. The landlord’s records show that jobs were raised on 12, 18 and 21 October 2022. The job notes are brief but categorise the issue against each job raised, as a faulty lock or ‘unstable’ or ‘insecure’ door. It stated that it attended and replaced the lock in response to the initial call out, but the date and response time is unknown. It is not clear when the landlord attended in response to the resident’s report on 18 October 2022. Based on the premise the door was unstable, it should have been considered an emergency and attended within 4 hours on both occasions, as per the landlord’s policy.
  4. In the absence of further information about when and what action was taken by the landlord, it is difficult to fully assess whether it acted accordingly. It is recommended that, going forward, the landlord keeps full and clear records of its activities regarding repairs, including dates and response times of attendance. This way, it can properly account for its service delivery, to both the resident in the event of a complaint, and the Ombudsman in the event of an intervention.
  5. The landlord reported that it attended and was unable to gain access on 21 October 2022. It cannot be held responsible for failing to address the issue in the instance of no entry.
  6. However, the resident also reported on 20 and 23 October 2022 that the landlord missed appointments. According to the landlord’s policy, it should have advised the resident if it was unable to attend and agreed an alternative date. This was a failing, and caused detriment to the resident who experienced frustration and unnecessary time off work. The landlord accepted that it missed several appointments and offered compensation of £180 for a total of 6 missed visits in its ‘quick fix’ response of 19 January 2022. It offered a further £30 for a missed visit in February 2022.
  7. Again, the records do not accurately reflect when and how many visits were missed. The resident stated to this Service that at least 4 were, so we might consider the landlord’s offer of compensation appropriate here. Its policy says, where a contractor fails to attend, the resident may be entitled to £30 compensation. However, the landlord should undertake a review to consider why so many appointments were missed and ensure this does not become a perpetual problem.
  8. It took the resident complaining 5 more times before a job was raised for the door’s urgent replacement on 27 January 2023. Despite categorising these complaints as ‘quick fixes’, there is no evidence the landlord made further visits or progressed the matter during this time. This was despite its assurances to the resident on 19 January 2023 that it was working to authorise and provide a timeline for works. This cannot be considered compatible with the ‘efficient and effective’ repairs service it aims to deliver under its responsive repairs policy.
  9. This delay was also to the detriment of the resident who had informed the landlord on several occasions of the impact the situation was having on her. She reported being unable to sleep due to the fear she was not secure in her home and having panic attacks.
  10. The landlord raised a repair to secure the door as an interim measure again on 27 January 2023. The records suggest this was closed as incomplete and attended on 31 January 2023, when an ease and adjustment of the lock was conducted. The circumstances behind the ‘incomplete’ job request on 27 January 2023 are unknown. In the absence of information, the landlord cannot be held responsible for any failure to resolve the issue sooner. However, again, it is noted that the landlord should keep full and auditable records of its repair activities.
  11. The landlord sent contractors to survey and accepted a quote for the replacement door in mid-February 2023. However, this did not progress quickly. The resident, already frustrated that she had to wait until mid-April 2023 for her replacement door to be made and fitted, was unaware that the job had actually been closed in error.
  12. In its internal correspondence, the landlord accepted there were several failings here, including that the officer who closed the job had not checked the job history, and opportunities to re-raise the job were missed. In fact, the order was not re-raised until 19 July 2023 when the matter was investigated as part of the stage 2 response. Enquiries were made about whether the housing officer had been informed the job had closed.
  13. It is not clear if this was the case but, going forward, the Ombudsman recommends that the landlord ensures appropriate alerts are sent to officers regarding any change in the status of repairs they are overseeing. This was a serious failing, which caused considerable upset to the resident. Due to the stress the situation evoked, she was unable to engage with the landlord when it contacted her in July 2023 and asked that it instead routed communication via the Ombudsman.
  14. When investigating complaints, the Ombudsman applies its ‘dispute resolution principles’. These are high level good practice guidance for use by everyone involved in the complaints process. There are three principles driving effective dispute resolution: to be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
  15. In its stage 2 response, the landlord appropriately acknowledged its failings. It offered an unreserved apology and provided an account of what it had got wrong, recognising the impact this had on the resident. It undertook efforts to put things right, offering compensation and assuring the resident it would progress the replacement door, which it followed through on. In response to its failings, it implemented further monitoring of high risk cases. Altogether, the Ombudsman deems these measures reasonable and proportionate.
  16. In total, in relation to its handling of the door repairs, the landlord offered £830 compensation (including the £230 offered on 19 January 2023 and the £100 offered in the stage 1 response for distress and inconvenience). The landlord did not reference the latter in its total and it is unclear if this has been paid. If not, the landlord should ensure that it is. It is also acknowledged that it delayed in paying the compensation from 19 January 2023. This was paid to the resident as part of the stage 2 offering in August 2023. This wait was unnecessary and to the frustration of the resident who had chased this in her stage 1 complaint.
  17. The resident accepted the landlord’s revised offer of compensation in August 2023, but felt it did not adequately reflect the distress caused. The landlord’s compensation policy distinguishes circumstances in which compensation might be awarded in terms of the impact a failing has had on a resident. These fall into 4 categories: low, medium, high, and exceptional. Compensation of over £250 is applicable where there has been exceptional impact, resulting from multiple failures, and the issue took significant time to resolve. The Ombudsman, therefore, considers the landlord’s offer of compensation reflective of the significance with which it viewed its failures, and reasonable in the circumstances.
  18. While the landlord’s failings in the handling of the works to the door amounted to maladministration, its remedies were proportionate and constitute reasonable redress. The Ombudsman has, however, made several recommendations, which it expects the landlord to consider and implement in order to improve its service going forward.

Landlord’s handling of the formal complaint

  1. The landlord logged the resident’s initial complaint about the unstable door and contractors failing to attend as a ‘quick fix’ complaint on 23 October 2022.  The landlord’s ‘complaints policy’ allows it to treat an initial complaint as a ‘quick fix’ without the need for a formal response.
  2. The resident made a further 5 complaints about the door between 26 October 2022 and 25 January 2023, which were also logged as ‘quick fixes’. There is no evidence the landlord acted upon the first 4 complaints between 23 October and 24 November 2023. It issued a ‘quick fix’ response on 19 January 2023 and, in response to the resident’s complaint of 25 January 2023, it scheduled for contractors to attend and quote for the door. However, overall, the issues were neither resolved nor acted upon promptly.
  3. The landlord’s complaints policy is clear that it is only appropriate to deal with a complaint as a ‘quick fix’ in certain circumstances. These are if it is the first time the resident has complained about the issue, the issue has been resolved, there are no outstanding actions, and it has confirmation from the resident that they do not want a formal response. None of these criteria were applicable, and the landlord therefore failed to follow its policy. This created increasing frustration for the resident, whose initial complaints went unaddressed. It also undermined the tenant-landlord relationship, with the resident feeling she had no choice but to consult the Ombudsman and enlist its help to progress the complaint.
  4. Following the Ombudsman’s intervention in December 2022, the landlord identified internally that it had failed to escalate the matter to stage 1 after the initial complaint. Despite this, no stage 1 investigation or complaint response was issued and it logged a further 2 quick fixes after this. This demonstrated a failure in the landlord’s processes. The complaints team had allocated the complaint to the housing officer, who did not progress the response, and there was no follow-up or further monitoring from the complaints team.
  5. The resident complained again on 3 March 2023, which was logged as a stage 1 complaint, and responded to on 17 March 2023. The landlord’s policy, in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) requires that it responds to stage 1 complaints in 10 working days. The response came 1 day late and with it an apology and compensation of £50 for the delay. Given this was not a significant delay, and the offer of compensation, this response was reasonable.
  6. Following the Ombudsman’s intervention in April 2023, the landlord acknowledged the request, logged it, and allocated it to the housing operations manager. However, again, no action was taken to progress the investigation, including monitoring by the complaints team. The Ombudsman understands there was a change in staff, and the complaint was not listed on the housing operations manager’s allocations list. However, there should be processes in place to safeguard the complaints process from such events. That the formal complaint was stalled on 2 occasions indicates a more significant issue with the landlord’s complaints system.
  7. It took further intervention from the Ombudsman on 10 July 2023 to prompt the response. This Service asked that a response be provided by 17 July 2023, and this was provided on 20 July 2023, with the resident’s consent. The landlord’s policy and the Code require that responses are issued within 20 working days at stage 2, though it is acknowledged that in this case the Ombudsman allowed for 25. The landlord’s response came after 61 working days, which presents a significant delay, and followed a series of errors and delays in its progression of the resident’s complaints and the replacement of her door, which only added to her frustration.
  8. In its complaint response, the landlord acknowledged its failures and what was required going forward. It awarded a further £250 compensation in recognition of its poor complaint handling and noted it required more effective triaging of cases to ensure quick fixes did not accumulate going forward. It also carried out an internal review of the complaint, in which it provided additional context to this, suggesting staff should be trained to ensure the quick fix process was understood and to guarantee an accessible complaints system. This review acknowledged it had a lot of trust to rebuild and its intention to be proactive in its communication with the resident going forward.
  9. The landlord’s repeat failures in its handling of this complaint amount to maladministration, however the stage 2 response and the landlord’s records show that it reckoned with these and offered appropriate remedy to the resident. The offer of compensation was reasonable and in line with both the landlord’s compensation policy and the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies. The Ombudsman, therefore, finds reasonable redress by the landlord, but has made recommendations to ensure learnings are implemented to improve the service going forward.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Scheme, there was reasonable redress in relation to the landlord’s handling of the:
    1. Works required to the resident’s front door.
    2. Formal complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Recommendations

  1. The landlord is recommended to:
    1. Ensure it keeps full and auditable records of its activities regarding repairs, including dates and response times of attendance.
    2. Undertake a review to consider why so many appointments were missed by its contractor and ensure this is not perpetuated ongoing.
    3. Ensure systems are in place for housing officers to receive updates from the repairs team in relation to action taken on any matters that they are overseeing.
    4. Ensure the offer of £150 compensation, made in its stage 1 response of 17 March 2023, was paid to the resident. If not, it should pay this now.
    5. Review how the complaints team monitor the progression of complaints to prevent drift and ensure residents receive timely redress.
    6. Ensure staff are aware of the policy in relation to ‘quick fix’ complaints. The history of the complaint should be considered so that the appropriate next steps are taken.