Notting Hill Genesis (NHG) (202402075)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202402075

Notting Hill Genesis (NHG)

30 September 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 handling of:
    1. Outstanding repairs to the kitchen ceiling and bathroom sink, the relocation of the resident’s oven following advice from an occupational therapist, and the replacement of the kitchen tap.
    2. The replacement of the balcony decking.
    3. Reports of the resident’s flat being excessively cold following the removal of the cladding and issues of damp and mould.
    4. Concerns raised by the resident that her front door should be replaced following a fire on the sixth floor in 2017.
    5. Its communication with the resident in relation to the 2023-2024 rent increase.
  2. This Service has also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The tenancy began on 10 November 2008. The property is a 2 bedroom flat on the eighth floor of an 8 storey block. The resident has asthma, lung issues, a spinal injury, arthritis, mobility issues and Crohn’s disease. Due to her disabilities, the resident needs to be able to dry washing on a daily basis. The resident lives in the property with her adult son.
  2. The building was constructed in 2008. Following the Grenfell tower tragedy in 2017, the landlord undertook a review of the scheme. As a result of the review, combustible cladding and insulation were removed from the front elevation in 2018/19. The resident’s property was directly affected by the removal of the cladding. She reported that her property was excessively cold and that she was experiencing damp and mould as a result. The landlord offered the resident compensation of £3,951 outside of its complaints process. This was to acknowledge the negative impact of the removal of the cladding and the reduction in the thermal efficiency of her property.
  3. The resident also raised concerns with the landlord that the wooden decking on her 2 balconies was rotten and in need of repair/replacement. She had tripped over a piece of wood and fallen, hurting her knee.
  4. The resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord on 13 October 2023. She said her flat was freezing as there was a cold wind blowing through. She said she was concerned that if there was a fire in the block, the smoke would be blown into her flat whilst she slept. She said her flat was full of smoke after a fire on the sixth floor some years before and she was still waiting for the new front door she was promised at the time.
  5. The landlord sent the resident a stage 1 complaint response on 3 November 2023. It said its heating contractors had attended the resident’s property in February 2023 to complete a heat loss survey and they found no issues. It said it was not aware that the resident’s issue was a general issue in the block. Therefore, it would ask its new heating contractor to complete a further heat loss survey. It apologised for the delay in providing the complaint response and offered the resident £50 compensation.
  6. The resident escalated her complaint on 22 November 2023 as she was unhappy with the landlord’s response. She included further concerns within her escalation request in relation to black mould that had formed on curtains and carpet and her stored items, the outstanding repairs/replacement of the balcony decking, and her request for the landlord to provide copies of the rent increase documents she said she had not received. The landlord accepted the additional issues and included them as part of the original complaint.
  7. The landlord sent the resident a stage 2 response on 22 December 2023. It said:
    1. As her property was on the front elevation of the building, following the removal of the cladding, the heat efficiency of her home had been reduced. Compensation for increased heating costs had been awarded to residents. However, as she had reported a draught throughout her flat, it would need to further investigate. A surveyor would attend her property on 4 January 2024. The damp and mould would also be investigated during the visit.
    2. The fire safety team had confirmed that the resident’s door needed minor works and adjustments. The works were due to be arranged. The fire in 2017 highlighted an issue with the blocks smoke control system which meant the smoke did not clear from the communal hallways. The system had been serviced and was in full working order.
    3. It was hoping to start the works to her decking in February 2024.
    4. It had attached the rent increase booklet for 2023/2024 as requested by the resident.
    5. It offered the resident £550 compensation.
  8. The resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response, so referred her complaint to the Ombudsman on 15 April 2024.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

  1. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint, or part of a complaint, will not be investigated.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman may not consider complaints that “are made prior to having exhausted a members complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint-handling failure and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale”.
  3. After carefully considering all the evidence, the following complaint points sit outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction as the landlord has not investigated these matters through its complaints process:
    1. Outstanding repairs to the kitchen ceiling and bathroom sink.
    2. The relocation of the resident’s oven following advice from an occupational therapist.
    3. The replacement of the kitchen tap.

Scope of investigation

  1. The Equality Act 2010 provides a legislative framework to protect the rights of individuals with protected characteristics from unfair treatment. Under the Act, the landlord has a legal duty to make reasonable adjustments where there is a provision, criterion or practice which puts a disabled person at a substantial disadvantage in relation to a relevant matter in comparison with persons who are not disabled. Although this Service cannot find that a landlord has breached the Equality Act, we can decide whether a landlord has had due regard to its duties under the Equality Act.
  2. The resident has expressed concerns regarding the impact the situation has had on her health. This Service is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impact on health and wellbeing. Claims for personal injury must be decided by a court, who can consider medical evidence and make legally binding findings. Where there has been a failing by the landlord, this Service may consider any general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident.
  3. The resident’s complaint refers to the landlord’s handling of communication relating to the 2023-2024 rent increase. It should be noted that the Ombudsman cannot review complaints that concern the level of rent, or the increase of rent. This is in line with paragraph 42(e) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. However, we can assess whether the landlord’s overall communication with, and responses to, the resident were appropriate, fair and reasonable. Complaints that relate to the level, reasonableness, or liability to pay rent are within the jurisdiction of the First-Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber).

The replacement of the resident’s balcony decking

  1. The evidence shows that the resident asked the landlord to replace her decking on 16 June 2021, following an incident when she tripped on a protruding piece of wood. The landlord confirmed in an email the following day that it had raised a repair for the decking to be replaced.
  2. It is unclear from the evidence provided what happened with regards to the decking replacement between June 2021 and December 2022. However, the evidence shows that the resident contacted the landlord again on 15 December 2022. She told it that she urgently needed the decking replaced. She said she had fallen over on the decking and hurt her knee, and a heating surveyor had also put his foot through the decking whilst visiting her property. She said it was in a dangerous condition and needed to be replaced urgently.
  3. The landlord’s responsive repairs policy says it aims to complete standard repairs within 20 working days. For replacement or improvements, it says it will communicate with tenants about the timeframe to complete the work. There is no evidence to suggest that the landlord attempted to repair the decking to at least make it safe for the resident whilst they were considering the replacement of the decking. There is also no evidence to suggest that the landlord communicated with the resident in relation to the timeframe in which it would complete the required work. The landlord had left the resident with unsafe decking and no plans to either carry out repairs or replacement of the decking for a period of 18 months at this point. Therefore, the landlord did not act in accordance with its responsive repairs policy and its actions were inappropriate in the circumstances. This was unreasonable and unfair to the resident as she was unable to use her decking for an extended period of time. This meant that she struggled to dry her washing and she had no access to her outside space during the summer months.
  4. The landlord attended the resident’s property on 18 January 2023. The job completion report noted that the entire decking to the front and back of the property was completely rotten. The landlord made recommendations that the decking should be replaced. However, there is no evidence to suggest that this recommendation was progressed. There is also no evidence to suggest that the landlord considered any temporary repairs or measures to make the decking safe in the meantime. This was unreasonable and unfair to the resident considering the prolonged period of time she had been without the use of her decking and the potentially unsafe condition the decking was in.
  5. It is unclear from the evidence provided what progress was made, if any, between January 2023 and November 2023. However, the resident’s escalation of her complaint to stage 2 on 22 November 2023 included her concerns in relation to her decking. She told the landlord that she had been waiting for the decking to be replaced for years. She said she had requested compensation from the landlord to replace her tumble dryer, as it had been in constant use due to her being unable to use her balcony to dry her washing.
  6. The landlord confirmed in an internal email dated 18 December 2023, that it was in the process of arranging the decking renewal. It said it was working towards a date in February 2024. Although this was pending the approval to erect scaffolding from the owner of the adjacent land. However, there is no evidence to suggest that the landlord had kept the resident updated on a regular basis with its plans. It is clear from the evidence provided that she had to contact the landlord if she wanted an update. This was unreasonable and unfair to the resident as it was time consuming and it caused her unnecessary frustration.
  7. The landlord sent the resident a stage 2 complaint response on 22 December 2023. It said it was aiming for a start date sometime in February 2024. It explained that it had contacted the owner of the adjacent property for access to erect scaffolding, however, it was still waiting for a response. It said it would not pay for a replacement dryer. Although it could offer £100 compensation as a gesture of goodwill.
  8. Although the landlord confirmed in the stage 2 response that it was expecting to start the works in February 2024, it did not address whether it could complete any temporary repairs or fixes to at least make the decking safe for use in the meantime. It also did not address the significant delay in completing the repairs/replacement or its lack of updates and poor communication with the resident. In addition, the compensation/gesture of goodwill of £100 did not reflect the extent of the service failures and the level of detriment caused to the resident by not being able to use her balcony for a prolonged period of time.

Events following the stage 2 response

  1. A local authority environmental health officer (EHO) visited the resident’s property on 17 January 2024 to inspect and check for any unsafe or unhealthy housing conditions. They contacted the landlord on 30 January 2024 to provide the outcome of the inspection. They said the outside balcony decking was visibly rotting and in disrepair. They said the decking needed to be completely replaced with a suitable weather resistant material. This would need to be maintained to ensure it remained free from hazards. They noted disrepair causing an uneven surface leading to the formation of sharp edges. This made the hazard outcome even greater should the resident fall.
  2. The EHO gave the landlord 4 weeks to complete the necessary repairs and 7 days to provide a clear plan of action based on the schedule given. The EHO said if the plan was not satisfactory, or if they did not receive a reply, they would consider further enforcement action. This could include serving an improvement notice. The EHO said if the hazards were not dealt with in a timely manner or to the standard required, they could serve the landlord with a civil penalty.
  3. The landlord responded to the EHO on 14 March 2024, outside of the given 4 week period. It confirmed it was aware that the decking had reached the end of its life and that it had been attempting to secure suitable access due to site constraints. It said it had attempted to engage with the neighbouring landlord to obtain scaffolding permission. However, it had been unsuccessful. It made assurances that it was working to deliver the renewal of the decking as soon as possible.
  4. The landlord contacted the resident on 15 March 2024 to provide an update on the renewal of the decking. It said it hoped to receive a suitable proposal by the end of the week.
  5. The EHO contacted the landlord on 25 April 2024 and 5 June 2024 to request an update on the decking renewal. The landlord responded on 11 June 2024. It said it had not received a response from the neighbouring landlord about the scaffold. It said it had been exploring an alternative option for carrying out the works through the block. Although the approach posed safety considerations as it would have to use the lifts to transport materials up to the eighth floor and it was concerned about the disruption to other residents. It said it appreciated that significant time had passed and it had yet to confirm a clear proposal. However, there were no effective temporary repair options that it could carry out.
  6. The EHO contacted the landlord again on 25 June 2024. They said they appreciated the many factors involved, however, the decking had been assessed as a category 1 hazard under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). This meant that the landlord needed to remove the hazard even if it was a temporary fix until the replacement works could take place. The EHO reminded the landlord that they had the ability to serve a notice where it would be required by law to remove the hazard. The landlord informed the EHO on 18 August 2024 that the decking works were complete.
  7. In summary, the landlord delayed unreasonably in replacing the resident’s balcony decking even though it was in an unsafe and hazardous condition. Its communication with the resident was poor throughout the case. It did not provide regular updates or keep the resident informed of any progress. It did not address its failings within the stage 2 response and the compensation offered did not reflect the level of detriment caused.
  8. As a result of these failings, the level of detriment caused to the resident by the unreasonable delays, and the landlord’s failure to provide reasonable redress, the Ombudsman finds that there was maladministration by the landlord in this case.

Reports of the resident’s flat being excessively cold following the removal of the cladding and issues of damp and mould

  1. It is clear from the evidence provided that this is a complex issue that has been difficult for the landlord to navigate, and it is unlikely to be rectified until the end of 2025. There have been a number of issues and delays that have been beyond the landlord’s control. However, it is also clear from the evidence provided that the overall situation has had a significant effect on the resident. This has been considered during the investigation of the case.
  2. The landlord removed the cladding to the front of the building in 2018/19, following a review of the scheme, as combustible cladding and insulation were found on the front elevation. It is unclear from the evidence provided what had happened between 2018/19 and January 2022. However, the landlord provided a cladding update to residents on 13 January 2022. It said it had been in the process of developing design solutions with the original developer. It had recently been informed that the building was outside of the 12 year limitation period for construction claims (for building safety issues/latent defects). This meant it had to find alternative funding. Therefore, it had made claims to both the National Housing Building Council (NHBC) and the Greater London Authority (GLA) for funding to replace the cladding. It said it expected to progress the funding and would confirm the next steps in due course.
  3. The landlord also said it was aware that some of its residents were experiencing damp and mould. It said it was planning to survey the affected flats and assess the exposed front façade to determine the cause of the damp/mould and what it could do to protect the area. It said it had identified 2 possible causes to consider. The first being the deterioration of the outer covering due to the length of time it had been exposed to weathering. The second being condensation within the buildings structure and mould growth caused by the missing external thermal break. It is unclear from the evidence provided whether the landlord carried out a survey of the resident’s flat, and if it did, what the outcome of the survey was.
  4. In addition to the cladding works, the evidence shows that the landlord had to carry out works to some of the resident’s boilers due to regulation changes. It had to move the boilers, take them off the shared communal flue system, and provide a new flue which would protrude from the front of the building. This work had to be coordinated with the cladding works and meant that the works were more complex than originally thought.
  5. It is unclear from the evidence provided what progress, if any, was made with the cladding works between January 2022 and December 2022. It is also unclear as to whether the resident had been kept updated by the landlord during this period. However, the evidence shows that the resident contacted the landlord on 15 December 2022. She said her flat was freezing and she had to constantly run her heating. She said she had black mould on her curtains and carpet which meant it had been necessary to replace them. She said the conditions in her property were affecting her asthma and she was tired of complaining about the cold air blowing around her flat. She asked the landlord to provide timescales as to when it would put things right.
  6. The landlord responded on the same day. It said it was developing a plan to carry out mould washes to the affected properties and it had added her property to the list. It asked the resident to provide photographs of the problem areas and to show if any of the windows/walls were facing the front of the block. It also said the senior project manager was available to visit her property the following week. It said it was working on a combined approach to ensure the boiler upgrades and cladding works were carried out at the same time. Because of this it expected the detailed design phase to run into Spring 2023 and it anticipated the programme of works to commence immediately following that.
  7. The landlord visited the resident’s property on 18 January 2023 to investigate the issues with the cold around the bedroom balcony door and window. It found that the door and window had been adjusted as far as they could be, and the seals were in good order. It said the inside seams around the joints had silicone on them and there were no visible signs of a draught. The landlord recommended the completion of a heat loss survey. This was a reasonable course of action to take in the circumstances given that there was no obvious cause of the draught felt by the resident noted on inspection.
  8. The heat loss survey was carried out at some point in February 2023. However, the landlord has not provided a copy of the survey or details as to the outcome.
  9. The landlord provided a building update to all residents on 16 February 2023. It apologised for the time taken to progress the works to the building. It said it had agreed the scope of the works required and it was in the process of finalising the contract with its contractors to be able to move forward.
  10. The landlord sent a letter to the resident on 20 March 2023 to confirm its offer of compensation. This was to acknowledge the negative impact of the cladding being removed from her home and the reduction in the thermal efficiency of the property. It said it had calculated the compensation based on 10% of the weekly rent and the length of time the cladding had been removed up to March 2024, which was the expected completion date of the work. It also included a one-off payment of £250 for its failure to progress the cladding works after a prolonged period. This equated to £3,951.92 in total.
  11. Although this appears to be a reasonable amount of compensation, this alone was not enough to resolve the issues the resident was experiencing. Under the Equality Act 2010 (the Act), the landlord has a legal duty to make reasonable adjustments where there is a provision, criterion or practice which puts a disabled person at a substantial disadvantage in relation to a relevant matter in comparison with persons who are not disabled.
  12. Given the resident’s disabilities and health issues it would have been reasonable of the landlord to look at alternative solutions to put things right. There is no evidence to suggest that the landlord had looked at ways to maximise the heat retention within the resident’s bedroom, or that it consciously considered whether a temporary or a permanent decant was appropriate in the circumstances. Therefore, it would be reasonable to conclude that the landlord did not have due regard to its duties under the Equality Act 2010. This was unreasonable and also demonstrates a lack of understanding of the resident’s concerns in relation to the cold and her health issues. It also shows a lack of empathy towards the resident’s situation.
  13. The resident responded to the landlord’s offer on 28 March 2023. She said it did not adequately reflect her circumstances. She said her bedroom was still freezing cold, and her curtains and carpet in her bedroom had been destroyed by damp and black mould. It had cost her £500 to purchase a new carpet. She said the situation had also affected her asthma. She had purchased cleaning solutions to clean the walls in the living room and bedroom, and paint to redecorate. She told the landlord that despite airing the property every day, she had to buy damp traps on a weekly basis to keep the moisture in the air to a reasonable level. The landlord forwarded the resident’s email on to another team to respond. However, there is no evidence to suggest that it provided a response. This was unreasonable. The unreasonableness of landlord’s lack of response was compounded by its failure to consider that the resident had asthma and she was clearly experiencing a significant adverse effect from the removal of the cladding in relation to her living conditions.
  14. The landlord provided an update to its residents on 15 August 2023. It explained that outstanding boiler upgrade works had impacted on the timeframes related to the cladding works. In addition, it had to carry out upgrade works to the building’s lift. It said it appreciated that it had not been providing regular updates, however, moving forward it would be arranging meetings every 6 to 8 weeks. The landlord provided a further update on 4 October 2023, although there was no new information in addition to what had already been provided.
  15. The resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord on 13 October 2023. She had been temporarily decanted at the time whilst the lift upgrade was undertaken. She said her flat was freezing and there was a constant cold wind blowing through her bedroom. She said she was concerned that if there was a fire in the block, the smoke would blow into her home whilst she slept. She told the landlord that she thought it did not care about her situation.
  16. The landlord sent the resident a stage 1 response on 3 November 2023. It said it had undertaken a heat loss survey in February 2023 and the results showed that there were no issues. However, it would ask a plumber to investigate the mains pressure. It said it was not aware that the resident’s issue was a general issue throughout the block, so it would arrange for a further heat loss survey to be carried out.
  17. The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 22 November 2023. She told the landlord that her cold flat was not related to her central heating. She reminded the landlord that she was vulnerable due to her disabilities and her health issues. She asked the landlord to find her appropriate alternative accommodation.
  18. The landlord sent the resident a stage 2 response on 22 December 2023. It said although it had said it would arrange a further heat survey in the stage 1 response, it did not arrange for a surveyor to visit to see whether there were any structural failings. It said, as the resident’s flat was on the front elevation of the building, the heat efficiency of her home had been reduced following the removal of the cladding. However, compensation had been awarded separately in that respect.
  19. The landlord said the resident’s reports that there was a wind blowing throughout her flat could relate to other issues that would need to be investigated by the surveyor. It confirmed that an appointment had been made for 4 January 2024. It also said that the resident should have been advised to raise a damp and mould case and it apologised if the information had not been provided. It said, in the interim, mould washes should be undertaken when needed. The landlord acknowledged its failure to arrange a survey at an earlier point in time. It also acknowledged that the recent heat loss survey found that the bedroom radiators were too small. It offered the resident £300 compensation and an additional £150 for the distress caused.
  20. Although the stage 2 response acknowledged that there had been some failings in the way it had dealt with the resident’s reports of excessive cold, it did not recognise the length of time the issue had persisted. It also did not acknowledge the resident’s disabilities and vulnerabilities or consider the additional impact the excessive cold may have on the resident. There was also no end in sight for the resident as the cladding was not expected to be reinstated for some time, and the landlord had not acknowledged or considered this within its response. In addition, the compensation of £450 did not reflect the extent of the service failures and the level of detriment caused to the resident.

Events following the stage 2 response

  1. The landlord continued to provide building updates to the residents. On 17 January 2024 a local authority environmental health officer (EHO) visited the resident’s property to check for any unsafe or unhealthy housing conditions. They informed the landlord that it had found no evidence of damp and mould in any of the rooms in the resident’s property. Although, following a damp meter test, dampness was indicated around the windows and patios door, but not to the extent it would indicate a damp problem. The EHO said, at the time of the inspection, a draughty room was not evident and would therefore not be deemed a hazard under HHSRS. The EHO said the cladding needed to be replaced and they were aware that the works were due to take place later that year.
  2. The landlord informed the resident on 15 February 2024 that the target date for completion of the cladding works would be December 2025.
  3. In summary, the landlord did not have due regard to its duties under the Equality Act 2010. Although it offered the resident compensation to acknowledge the reduction in the thermal efficiency of her property outside of the complaints process, it did not look at alternative solutions which may be reasonably required due to the resident’s protected characteristics. It did not consider whether a temporary or permanent decant was appropriate given the resident’s disabilities/vulnerabilities. Its communication with the resident was poor at times throughout the case and the level of compensation awarded at stage 2 did not reflect the extent of the landlord’s failures, particularly as the issue was ongoing and not likely to be resolved for some time.
  4. As a result of these failings, the level of detriment caused to the resident by the removal of the cladding, and the landlord’s failure to provide reasonable redress, the Ombudsman finds that there was maladministration by the landlord in this case.

Concerns raised by the resident that her front door should be replaced following a fire on the sixth floor in 2017

  1. The landlord has not provided any evidence to this Service relating to the fire that occurred on the sixth floor in 2017. It is unclear whether the resident complained to the landlord at the time of the incident, or whether this was the first occasion she had raised the issue. In January/February 2024 the block was undergoing fire safety works in the communal areas. This included works to flat entrance doors and the installation of a new heat detection and fire alarm system. There was a waking watch system in place, which was to remain in place until all remedial works had been completed.
  2. The evidence shows that the resident raised the issue of her front door needing to be replaced with the landlord on 15 December 2022. She said she had attended a meeting some years ago when she was told that her door would be replaced as it did not fit properly. She said she was also told to draught proof her door, but that had not helped as the lock kept jamming. There is no evidence to suggest that the landlord provided the resident with a response to her concerns. This was unreasonable as it was clearly a concern for the resident which the landlord needed to address.
  3. The resident raised the issue again within her formal complaint to the landlord on 13 October 2023. She told the landlord that her flat had been full of smoke when there was a fire on the sixth floor (in 2017). She said the landlord had agreed to change her door at the time but she was still waiting for the work to be carried out. However, the landlord made no reference to the resident’s front door within the stage 1 response.
  4. The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 22 November 2023. Within her escalation request she told the landlord that she was concerned about her safety should there be a fire within the block. She said the landlord had a duty to provide a flat door that met the fire regulations and prevented smoke from entering her property.
  5. The landlord sent the resident a stage 2 response on 22 December 2023. It said the fire safety team had confirmed that her door needed minor works and adjustments and the works were due to be arranged (in 2024). It said the fire in 2017 highlighted an issue with the automatic ventilation system. This meant the smoke did not clear from the communal hallway when the resident of the flat concerned left her flat door open whilst escaping the fire. It said the automatic ventilation system had been serviced since then and it was in working order. The landlord confirmed that the most recent service was in June 2023.
  6. Although the stage 2 response explained to the resident the reason why her flat had filled with smoke in 2017, it did not explain fully why it had said it would replace her front door at the time, and then failed to do so. This Service appreciates that the fire was some time ago, however, given the obvious concerns around resident safety, the landlord should have recorded the incident at the time it occurred. It should therefore have been able to provide a full response to the resident.
  7. In summary, the landlord failed to demonstrate that it responded to the resident’s concerns about her front door in December 2022. It also failed to address the issues within the stage 1 response. It did respond within the stage 2 response, however, the response did not fully address the resident’s concerns. As a result of these failings, the Ombudsman finds that there was service failure by the landlord in this case.

Communication with the resident relating to the 2023-2024 rent increase

  1. The evidence shows that the landlord sent the resident a rent increase booklet on 25 August 2023. This informed the resident that her rent would increase from 2 October 2023 and her new rent would be £166.76 per week. There is no evidence to suggest that the resident did not receive the rent increase letter or that she had informed the landlord and requested a copy of the letter.
  2. The resident told the landlord within her escalation to stage 2 request on 22 November 2023, that she was still waiting for a copy of the rent increase notice. She said the landlord had refused to provide the documents she should have received prior to the increase.
  3. The landlord confirmed in its stage 2 response dated 22 December 2023, that it had attached a copy of the rent increase booklet to the response.
  4. In summary, as the landlord provided the resident with a copy of the rent increase booklet with the stage 2 complaint response, there is no evidence of service failure in relation to the landlord’s communication with the resident relating to the 2023-2024 rent increase.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints process. The landlord’s complaints and compliments policy says it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days. Stage 2 complaints are responded to within 20 working days.
  2. The resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord on 13 October 2023. The landlord provided a stage 1 complaint response on 3 November 2023. This was 15 working days from the date of the complaint, and just outside the landlord’s timeframe of 10 working days for stage 1 complaints. The landlord acknowledged the delay in the stage 1 response and it offered the resident £50 compensation.
  3. The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 22 November 2023. The landlord sent the resident the stage 2 complaint response on 22 December 2023. This was 22 working days from the date of escalation and just outside of the landlord’s timeframe of 20 working days for stage 2 complaints.
  4. Although the landlord did not act in accordance with its complaints policy when it delayed in providing both the stage 1 and stage 2 responses, the impact on the resident was minimal given that the delay at stage 2 was just 2 working days.
  5. Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In this case the landlord’s offer of £50 compensation and its acknowledgement of the delays at stage 1 represents reasonable redress for the identified failings. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord has been able to evidence it made reasonable and proactive efforts to resolve the complaint and “put things right” in accordance with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles.
  6. In summary, although there was a delay in the stage 1 response, the landlord attempted to put things right through its complaints process. The redress offered by the landlord was reasonable in the circumstances, and in line with the remedies guidance provided by the Ombudsman for cases where there was a minor failure by the landlord in the service it provided. The landlord is therefore to pay the overall compensation of £50 if it has not already done so. The finding of reasonable redress is dependent on the compensation being paid.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the resident’s complaints concerning the landlord’s handling of outstanding repairs to the kitchen ceiling and bathroom sink, the relocation of the resident’s oven following advice from an occupational therapist, and the replacement of the kitchen tap are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the replacement of the resident’s balcony decking.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of reports of the resident’s flat being excessively cold following the removal of the cladding and the issues of damp and mould.
  4. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of concerns raised by the resident that her front door should be replaced following a fire on the sixth floor in 2017.
  5. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of its communication with the resident relating to the 2023-2024 rent increase.
  6. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress by the landlord in its handling of the associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within four weeks of the date of the report, the landlord must:
    1. Apologise to the resident in writing for the failings identified in this report.
    2. Pay the resident total compensation of £1,425 (the landlord can deduct from the total any amount it has already paid. This does not include the money paid to the resident outside of the complaints process) made up of:
      1. £600 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the delays in replacing the balcony decking.
      2. £750 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s failure to consider alternative solutions to address the excessive cold in her property. This takes into account the resident’s personal circumstances, of which the landlord was aware.
      3. £75 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s failure to respond to her concerns in relation to her front door.
      4. The landlord must pay the compensation directly to the resident.
    3. Arrange an inspection/survey of the resident’s property to see whether any measures can be put in place to improve the heat retention within the resident’s bedroom until the cladding can be reinstated. The landlord should write to the resident with the outcome of the survey/inspection and its proposals. The landlord should send a copy of the letter to this Service. If there are no viable measures that can be put in place, the landlord should undertake a full risk assessment of the resident’s circumstances and consider whether it would be appropriate to decant the resident until the cladding works are complete. The landlord should provide this Service with a full copy of the risk assessment and its decision.
    4. If it has not done so already, undertake a full assessment of the resident’s front door to determine whether it meets current fire regulations. The landlord should provide the resident and this Service with a copy of the assessment.
  2. The landlord should reply to this Service with evidence of compliance with these orders within the timescales set out above.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord should, if it has not already done so, pay the resident the £50 compensation it offered for complaint handling failures in its stage 1 response.
  2. The landlord should reply to this Service within four weeks of the date of this report to advise of its intentions in regard to the above recommendation.