Notting Hill Genesis (NHG) (202305135)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202305135

Notting Hill Genesis (NHG)

14 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 handling of the remedial works to the property following a flood.

Background

The resident has a secure tenancy with the landlord which commenced on 1 August 2005. The landlord is a housing association. The property is described as a four-bedroom basement maisonette.
The resident has a medical condition that affects her immune system. The resident uses a wheelchair.
On 14 July 2021, there were flash floods in London and the resident was decanted to alternative accommodation.
Between 19 July 2021 and 21 July 2021, the landlord’s contractor started the clearance of the resident’s property. It informed the landlord that there was a lot of belongings to be removed from the property. Pictures were provided of the resident’s property.
The landlord provided an update to residents affected by the flood on 6 August 2021. It set out the actions to be taken regarding getting the properties cleaned and advised that asbestos, gas and electrical inspections may need to be carried out. It also provided information regarding drop-in sessions that would be held.
On 11 August 2021, the resident attended a drop-in session. She informed the landlord that she had not received the food vouchers for her and her family. Later that same day, the landlord delivered the food vouchers. Around 2 weeks later, the resident chased the outstanding works to the property and said that she felt disrespected as its contractors had not taken care when handling her belongings. In addition, the housing officer had not returned her calls or kept appointments. Finally, her possessions that contained sewage remained at the property.
An asbestos survey was carried out on 8 September 2021 at the property. The report was shared with the landlord on 20 September 2021. It did not find asbestos in the property.
On the same day and on 10 September 2021, the resident chased the landlord for its response to her request for a permanent transfer. The resident expressed disappointment at the length of time that she had been staying in the hotel. She requested a move to a specific area, explaining that she needed to be near her support services such as GP and hospital.
In late January 2022, the resident complained to the landlord. The actual date of the complaint is not clear from the landlord’s records. The resident complained that:
1. She experienced a delay in the landlord completing the remedial repairs to the property. Consequently, with her family, she had been resident in the hotel for over 6 months.
2. The landlord had failed to take into account her medical conditions and that she used a wheelchair.
3. The compensation payments had not been made and her husband had incurred additional extra travel costs getting to work as public transport was limited.
4. The leak in the toilet upstairs remained unresolved, which caused the partial collapse of the ceiling to the bedroom.
5. A suitable alternative property had not been offered.
6. Her preferred outcome was for the compensation to be paid and the landlord to acknowledge its service failures.
On 11 February 2022, the landlord provided its complaint response. It stated that it had spoken to the resident. A summary of its findings are:
1. Flood remedial works:
  1. It apologised for the time taken for the works to start and advised that over 300 properties had been affected by the flood.
  2. It recognised the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident.
  3. It explained that there were staff changes which affected the quality of the communication provided to the resident and apologised that it did not meet its customer care standards.
  4. It stated that it had to carry out a detailed asbestos survey and that this took additional time to arrange. Later it identified that a damp works specialist was needed to report on the water ingress and damp issues at the property.
  5. It provided a timeline from 14 July 2021 (when the floods occurred) to 7 February 2022 when the works commenced.
  6. It offered a compensation award of £600, broken down as:

(1) £250 for the delays that she experienced.

(2) £250 for the distress and inconvenience that she experienced.

(3) £100 for the delay in responding to the complaint.

Move
1. It explained that all residents impacted by the floods in July 2021 were offered the opportunity to move to another property.
2. It did not have many 4 bed properties in its housing stock. Furthermore, it did not have a 4-bed property in the resident’s area of choice. It provided the areas in West London that it did have properties available.
3. It apologised that the resident was offered a property of the incorrect size.
4. It accepted that the resident needed to remain in the same postcode, therefore it did not have a property that it could offer her.
5. It had offered a service apartment for the resident to move to until the property became ready. However, it could not find a service apartment to meet her family size.
6. It offered regret for the stress and inconvenience of having to live in a hotel for over 6 months until the works to the property were completed.
Compensation
1. It requested that the resident provide information about the items and furniture that were removed without her consent.
2. It acknowledged that the resident could not obtain contents insurance as the property had been flooded before.
3. It gave information about the hardship fund which the resident could use to obtain furniture, asking the resident to advise whether she wished to use the service.
4. It provided information about other organisations which the resident could use to obtain support payments.
5. It agreed to reimburse any reasonable expenses that the resident incurred, including travel and informed her that receipts should be provided.
Toilet leak
1. It apologised for the delay in fixing the leak to the toilet which had been ongoing for some years.
2. It stated that its records did not have a record of a repair request and apologised for not resolving the repair earlier.
3. It confirmed that it would investigate the cause of the leak and resolve this as part of the required works to the property.
4. It stated that it would replace the ceilings affected by the leak as part of the works.
5. It offered a compensation award of £150 for the failure to resolve the leak and the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.
Summary
1. It had learnt from its response to the flood disaster such as the need to act quickly in response and its business capacity had to include the management of its day-to-day services.
2. It advised that its intention was to resolve the outstanding repairs and support the resident while she was away from the property.

The landlord received a waterproofing report on 15 February 2022. The report stated the lower ground area of the property was surveyed. The report advised that there was evidence of rising damp to the lower ground floor and walls plus penetrating damp as the ground level was higher to the front elevation.
In addition, the waterproofing report stated that the dampness was caused by a slate damp proof course. The existing damp proof course had been breached and was not functioning. It provided a quote to remove the existing render to a particular height and to chemically inject a damp proof course. It also requested that the building surveyor examine the chimney breast.
The work to chemically inject the damp proof course was completed in March 2022. The guarantee to the landlord does not give the exact date.
On 8 April 2022, its contractor informed the landlord that they had accessed the locked rooms within the resident’s property without her consent to carry out works. They had apologised to the resident. The landlord suggested that the contractor make a compensation award of £200 to the resident in acknowledgement of the stress and disturbance experienced.
On the same day, the resident requested compensation and supplied a list of items that were salvageable that the contractor had disposed of. The list also included items that had been left in the road by the contractors who were helping the resident dispose of contaminated items. The landlord offered the resident a further £250 for this in addition to the £750 offered in its stage 1 response.
The resident informed the landlord on 8 April 2022 that she was unhappy with the amount of compensation offered. The resident stated that she wanted compensation for the increased travel cost, Wi-Fi and items lost in the flood.
The landlord spoke to an occupational therapist on 27 April 2022 regarding the resident’s bathing requirements. The landlord was informed that the resident was on the waiting list and that she required a deeper bath. The possibility of a wet room was discussed and the landlord was informed that there was no restriction on the resident returning to the property.
The landlord’s records show that the resident returned to the property on 12 May 2022.
A Member of Parliament (MP) wrote to the landlord on 1 September 2022, stating that the resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s compensation award. The resident and her family had been affected by the flood, including the loss and damage to her personal belongings.
On 19 October 2022, the landlord responded to the Member of Parliament. It outlined the action it had taken with regard to the flood. It advised that it had provided weekly support payments of £730 to the resident and made a compensation award of £700 followed by another payment of £500. Also, it was aware that the resident was present while the property was being cleared but it accepted that members of the public could have removed her belongings that were placed outside the property. It advised that it had not received an escalation request from the resident and agreed to contact her about this.
The MP informed the landlord that the resident wanted to escalate the complaint on 21 November 2022. On 13 January 2023, the landlord confirmed to the MP and the resident that the complaint had been escalated.
The resident provided a list of clothes and belongings destroyed in the flood to the landlord on 17 January 2023 plus information regarding the travel expenses and broadband access. The resident stated that the leak to the toilet was reported to the housing officer before the ceiling collapsed. It is noted that the actual date was not provided when the leak was reported. The resident also provided further information regarding her dissatisfaction since the works were completed such as the security of the front door, lack of the adapted bath and that the contractor disrespected her belongings when the property was being cleared. In addition, the alternative offers of accommodation were not suitable and it took 7 months before the remedial work was started to complete.
The landlord provided its final stage complaint response on 17 March 2023. It advised that an independent manager not involved in the complaint had been part of the review. A summary of the findings are:
1. Provision of final complaint response
  1. The landlord acknowledged its delay in providing the complaint response and made a compensation award of £100 compensation for this.
2. Delay in flood remedial work:
  1. It apologised for the impact of the flood on the resident and her family, including upheaval during the time taken to start and complete the remedial work at the property.
  2. It repeated that over 300 of its homes had been affected and said it had been impacted by changes in staff turnover. It noted that the resident had been decanted from 14 July 2021 to 13 May 2022.
  3. The property was jet washed and cleared of contaminated items. It accepted that items may have been stolen by neighbours and contractors and/or her belongings may have been left on the road by its contractors.
  4. It recognised that there was a delay as work to the property did not start until 7 February 2022.
3. Compensation received following the flood.
  1. It provided a table showing the support payments made to residents affected by the flood.
  2. It confirmed that a weekly payment of £730 was made to the resident and her family.
  3. It had also offered £750 during the complaint process.
  4. It agreed to reimburse the resident any reasonable expenses that had been incurred once receipts were received.
  5. An additional compensation award of £250 was made to recognise poor communication and £250 for the theft of the resident’s belongings.
  6. It agreed to pay Wi-Fi costs at £35 for 28 days from 14 July 2021 to 28 February 2022 which it said totalled £245. It accepted that it was unsure if the payment was offered to the resident.
  7. A stage 1 compensation award of £1,495 was made to the resident but had not been accepted.
4. Extra costs
  1. It did not receive confirmation of the receipts for the additional travel costs until 13 January 2023.
  2. It received receipts totalling £765.63 to cover the travel costs for the resident’s husband and son when they were unable to use public transport.
  3. It reviewed the receipts and accepted that additional costs had been incurred by the resident’s husband and son.
  4. It had been unable to confirm that there were road or train closures as maintained by the resident.
  5. It agreed to cover the travel costs that were incurred between 8pm and 8am as travelling between those hours would be difficult.
  6. A compensation award for the total travel cost was calculated at £214.52.
5. Move
  1. It repeated that it had limited 4-bedroom properties.
  2. It was difficult to find the resident suitable temporary or permanent accommodation in her preferred area of choice.
  3. The accommodation that it did find was refused by the resident which resulted in her remaining in the hotel until the works were completed.
  4. It stated that it could have done more to find her a suitable property.
6. Delays in logging stage one complaint
  1. It stated that it missed opportunities to register the resident’s complaint on 11 August 2021, 1 September 2021, 8 September 2021 and 24 November 2021.
  2. The complaint was registered on 28 January 2022, 5 months after it was aware of the resident’s dissatisfaction.
  3. It acknowledged the poor record keeping contributed to the delay in the complaint being registered.
7. Compensation
  1. The landlord revised its compensation award and made a new overall award of £2,259.52.
  2. It recognised that there had been a serious failure in its services.
  3. In addition to the £750 offered at the first stage of its complaint procedure, it made further awards of:

(1) £250 for poor communication;

(2) £250 for theft of items;

(3) £245 for Wi-Fi costs from 14 July 2021 to 28 February 2022;

(4) £200 for not registering the stage one complaint on 4 separate occasions;

(5) £250 for additional distress and inconvenience;

(6) £214.52 for resident’s husband’s and son’s travel costs between 8pm to 8am;

(7) £100 delayed final stage 2 response.

Summary
1. It apologised for the delays and poor service that the resident had experienced.
2. It explained that it had learnt from the experience such as:

(1) When providing information to residents, notes should be made on its systems.

(2) Comprehensive handover notes should be made before staff leave so that new staff are aware of the history of the property.

(3) Better collaboration between the flood team and the housing officers to ensure the accuracy of information provided to residents. Also, to reduce delays in logging and responding to complaints and repairs.

The resident remained dissatisfied and the MP escalated her complaint to this Service.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

Whilst this Service is an alternative to the courts, it is unable to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action have had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health. Nor can it calculate or award damages. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to consider the personal injury aspects of the resident’s complaint regarding the impact to her daughter or the loss of her dog. These matters are likely better suited to consideration by a court or via a personal injury claim.

Landlord’s handling of the remedial works to the property following a flood

This has clearly been a difficult period for the resident as her property had been flooded on more than one occasion. It is appreciated that the resident found the experience stressful. However, this investigation must consider whether the landlord took appropriate steps to respond to the resident’s concerns in line with its responsibilities under the tenancy agreement.
Under Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the landlord has a responsibility to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property including drains and external pipes. This is repeated in the tenancy agreement that the resident has with the landlord.
The Ombudsman Dispute Resolution Principles are: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes. In addition, this Service’s Remedies Guidance sets out our approach to redress and how this must be proportionate to the severity of a service failure by the landlord.
There were flash floods in London in July 2021. The landlord in its complaint responses has accepted its service failures with regard to the handling of the remedial works required to the property, including the delay in getting the works started. The landlord has acted appropriately by apologising to the resident and her family for the service failures and offered overall compensation of £2,259.92.
In its complaint responses, the landlord accepted that it took over 7 months before the repairs were started. It apologised to the resident for the unacceptable delay that she experienced
Based on evidence seen by this Service, 2 asbestos inspections were carried out at the property. The first was on 8 September 2021 and the second was in January 2022. On both occasions, it was assessed that asbestos was not present. The landlord has acknowledged the delays in the organisation of these asbestos inspections. The landlord’s submission does not explain why it could not rely on the asbestos inspection carried out in September 2021 when its contractor questioned whether the floor tiles contained asbestos.
However, the landlord has a duty to repair or, if necessary, remove any damaged asbestos containing materials in the property. It is also required to ensure that any works relating to asbestos containing materials are caried out safely and not to expose the resident or its staff (including any contractors) to any risk. While the asbestos management survey did not identify the presence of asbestos in September 2021, the landlord cannot be criticised for taking the necessary precautions in line with its health and safety responsibilities.
The contractor reported to the landlord in April 2022 that it had accessed the rooms locked by the resident without her consent. In response to the report from the contractor, the landlord responded that they should make a compensation award directly to the resident for the stress and distress they had caused. This was in addition to the apology already given by the contractor to the resident. This was reasonable as the resident had an expectation of privacy and security, which the contractor breached by their actions. Also, the contractor had not given the resident sufficient notice as prescribed in the tenancy agreement that they required access to carry out repairs to those rooms.
The communication with the resident about the landlord’s response to the floods was handled by a flood team. This provided regular briefings to the resident about the progress of the work, including the surveyor inspections. At its drop-in session with the resident in August 2021, the landlord signposted her to ways that she could obtain support, including financial. This was appropriate as there were a number of schemes, including one ran by the water company, that the resident could approach to obtain assistance to replace her furniture and belongings.
The resident complained about the conduct of the contractors employed to remove her belongings from the property. The resident also complained that she was not given sufficient time to remove her belongings that were not damaged by the contaminated water. The landlord in its complaint response did not dispute the resident’s assertions and offered its apologies. This was appropriate as the landlord is responsible for the actions of its contractors and it acknowledged the resident’s upset that her belongings had not been treated with respect.
It is not within the Ombudsman’s authority to determine negligence or to consider the outcome of insurance claims. This is because the Ombudsman is unable to make legally binding decisions in the way that a tribunal or the courts can. However, it is noted that the landlord has liability insurance which covers situations where it is alleged that it has been negligent and damage has been caused to a resident’s belongings. It is not clear whether the resident was informed of the possibility of making a liability claim by the landlord for the damage to her belongings.
The landlord’s compensation policy excludes the payment of compensation when it has acted to resolve a problem but there were external factors beyond its control such as extreme weather conditions. Also, where the damage would normally be covered by the resident’s own household insurance policy. As the landlord was aware that the resident did not have household contents insurance, it acted appropriately by reviewing the list of items provided by her that were allegedly lost or stolen due to having been left on the pavement.
Whilst the landlord made an award of compensation for the lost items, it did not explain how it had assessed the value of the lost items. It is also noted that from the available information that it is not possible to assess the value of the resident’s belongings that were damaged by the flood.
The landlord in its complaint response accepted that its communication with the resident could have been better. This was reasonable as the updates provided by the flood team were generic and not specific to the resident’s particular circumstances.
The landlord told this Service that the resident was not recorded as vulnerable. This is in contrast to the information provided by the resident about her health conditions which require her to use a wheelchair. Looking at the landlord’s actions when trying to find alternative accommodation for the resident and before the return to her tenancy, it acted appropriately. The landlord considered her mobility requirements when trying to source the temporary decant and her preferred areas of choice.
In addition, before the resident returned to her property, it sought advice from the occupational therapist in April 2022 about her bathing requirements. Since this complaint, this Service has provided guidance to landlords about providing policies that meet individual residents’ needs. It highlights the need for landlords to record and respond to reasonable adjustments that residents require. A recommendation is made about this later in this report.
The landlord appropriately assessed that the resident and her family required alternative accommodation. This was in line with its decant policy. In its complaint response, it advised that its preference was to make an offer of a permanent move. This was reasonable as it would have reduced the time the resident spent in temporary accommodation while the property was being repaired.
The resident informed the landlord that she would only accept an offer of permanent housing in the same postcode that she lived in. The resident explained that her support needs such as her doctor, hospital and family were in that area which was the reason she did not wish to leave it. While the landlord took into account the resident’s view, there were gaps in the periods in which it requested that the insurance claims accommodation bureau (ICAB) find alternative information and its follow ups to minimise the time spent in temporary accommodation.
The landlord was informed that ICAB could not find a service apartment large enough to accommodate the family. Also, the providers ICAB worked with were unwilling to accept the resident’s pets. During the course of the time that the resident was accommodated, she initially had 2 dogs and 2 cats. The landlord also contacted the resident to suggest that it could provide 2 hotel rooms for the family over the Christmas holiday period. The resident refused the landlord’s offer as she was not comfortable with her family being accommodated in separate rooms.
The landlord made 2 offers of permanent accommodation to the resident. Neither of the properties were a 4-bedroom property and both were refused by the resident. In its complaint response, the landlord explained that in its housing stock, it did not have a large supply of 4-bedroom properties and did not have a vacancy in the resident’s preferred areas of choice. The landlord acknowledged in its review of the complaint that it could have done more to find the resident permanent accommodation. While it is appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge its service failures, it would have been helpful for it to explain the further action it believed that it could take to assist the resident in finding permanent accommodation in the specific area of her choice – this was a shortcoming on the part of the landlord.
The resident was entitled to a support package while she was accommodated in the hotel. This was £20 per person per day and from the end of February, the hotel supplied breakfast. The resident received £730 each week in line with the landlord’s decant policy. There is one period when the resident advised that the payment had not been received and the landlord attended to provide the food vouchers that evening. The flood team also provided information to the resident that over the Christmas period, bulk support payments would be made in advance. These were all reasonable actions to assist the resident with the additional costs of living in the hotel for a protracted period of time.
The resident informed the landlord that during the period she was resident in the hotel, her husband and son incurred additional travel costs. The resident explained that her husband and son travelled to work during unsocial hours which impacted their ability to use public transport. Also, that there were road and public transport closures that meant they had to travel by uber. The landlord considered the resident’s request and, once it had received the travel receipts and proof of employment, assessed the amount that it would pay. This was reasonable to satisfy itself of the increased costs incurred. The landlord concluded that, due to the passage of time, it could not confirm the road and public road closures. However, it agreed to pay the travel costs incurred between 8pm to 8am. This was a reasonable approach.
The resident reported to the landlord that following a leak to the toilet, a ceiling in the bedroom had collapsed. The resident did not provide a date when the repair was reported to the landlord and the landlord’s submission to this Service did not provide the repair records before the complaint was made. Consequently, it is not possible to determine whether the landlord responded to the repair within its published repair time frames. However, in its complaint response, the landlord accepted that it had dealt with historic reports of leaks to the property and agreed to repair the toilet and ceiling while it was completing the repairs to the property. This was appropriate as it was in accordance with its repairing obligations.
The landlord in its review of the complaint identified that it had missed opportunities to register and resolve the complaint, highlighting four separate occasions on 11 August 2021, 3 September 2021, 24 November 2021 and 19 January 2022. The landlord also identified that when the resident made contact in April 2022 to advise that she remained dissatisfied with the compensation award, it missed an opportunity to escalate the complaint. The landlord only did so when contacted by the MP. The resident also experienced an unacceptable delay in obtaining the landlord’s final complaint response as this was sent outside its published complaint handling targets. The landlord offered its sincere apologies for its service failures and awarded specific compensation for its poor complaint handling.
The landlord made an overall compensation award of £2,259.52. This recognised the delay in completing the works to the property, distress and inconvenience that the resident experienced and increased travel costs for the resident’s husband and son. The compensation award also included a goodwill gesture for the loss of the resident’s belongings, Wi-Fi costs, poor communication and its complaint handling failures.
While the landlord was undertaking remedial work to the property, it also addressed damp works that were required. The resident’s complaint does not mention that the property was damp so it is not possible to determine how long the property had been in that condition or whether this had been reported to the landlord. The report from the damp specialist stated that the reason for the dampness in the property resulted from the damp proof course being breached.
The landlord has acknowledged that there was unacceptable delays in starting the work to the property and accepted the resident’s account of the behaviour of its contractor in the handling of her belongings. After placing the resident in hotel accommodation, the landlord tried to find alternative temporary or permanent accommodation (but was unsuccessful). This Service has no evidence that the landlord had a suitable temporary or permanent property to move the resident to that would meet her family size and preferred area of choice so we are unable to conclude that the landlord missed any opportunities in this regard.
The landlord reimbursed the resident for the additional costs that she incurred through the lack of Wi-Fi while being in the hotel and the increased travel costs for her husband and son. Before returning to the tenancy, the landlord obtained advice from the occupational therapist to ensure that the property was suitable for her to return to. These were reasonable and resolution-focused actions to take.
The landlord informed the resident that it had learnt from the complaint regarding the need for improved communication between the different departments responding to the flood. It also recognised its record keeping failures and set out how it proposed to improve the information contained on its systems.
Overall, the landlord has accepted that its service provision to the resident should have been better. It has identified its shortcomings, the impact on the resident and acknowledged that its services required improvement. Given all the circumstances of the case, including the level of detriment caused by the landlord’s actions, its sincere apology, compensation awards and learning from the complaint warrant a finding of reasonable redress.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made a reasonable offer of redress in respect of its handling of the remedial works to the property following a flood.

Recommendations

If it has not already done so, within four weeks of this determination, the landlord should pay the resident the £2,259.52 that it agreed in its final complaint response.
The landlord should update its records to reflect the resident’s vulnerabilities, including that she is a wheelchair user.
This Service recommends that the landlord reviews the Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Attitudes and Relationships to establish points of learning, especially around positive ways of interacting with residents with vulnerabilities.