Notting Hill Genesis (202313683)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202313683

Notting Hill Genesis (NHG)

29 November 2024

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example, whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice, or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman, and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Response to the resident’s:
  1. Request for adaptations in the garden.
  2. Reports of repair issues following a flood.
2. Complaints handling.

Background

The named tenant has been an assured tenant at the property of the landlord since May 2029. The landlord is a registered provider of social housing. Throughout the period of the complaint, the named tenant’s son has corresponded with the landlord. For the purposes of this report, all communications from the named tenant’s son are described as coming from ‘the resident’.
In or around November 2020, the resident requested that adaptations be completed in the garden. These included works to the garden steps and the installation of a handrail. At this time, the landlord advised that an Occupational Therapist’s (OT) report would be required prior to any adaptations. The resident subsequently queried if the garden steps could be addressed as a repair as he considered them to be unsafe. It is not evident that the landlord addressed this query.
It is not disputed that an OT report was provided on 15 October 2021 and sent again in February 2022. The report noted the need for adaptations in the garden, but did not provide an exact scope of works. The report also noted the OT was contactable to discuss the resident’s requirements further if the landlord had any questions. It is not evident that the landlord contacted the OT at this time.
In or around July 2021, the property was impacted by a flood, which also affected many other homes in the area. This resulted in damage to the resident’s basement and to the plasterwork in the property. It is evident that this was reported to the landlord at the time; however, the landlord’s records note that a surveyor did not attend until March 2022.
Following the surveyor’s inspection, the resident chased the landlord for updates on a number of occasions. The landlord’s internal communications from May and June 2022 show that it was unclear which internal team was responsible for the repairs. It subsequently arranged for an inspection in June 2022 and asked its contractor for a quote relating to the works in the garden in July 2022. However, it is not evident it progressed these works at this time.
The resident continued to chase updates throughout 2022 and make reports of damp in the property as a result of the flood. He chased further updates in October and November 2022, and once again, the landlord’s internal communications demonstrate it was not clear what works, if any, had been raised or who was responsible.
It is not disputed that the resident attempted to raise formal complaints through the landlord’s online system on several occasions between December 2021 and July 2022; however, these were not logged correctly by the landlord’s system.
The resident made a further complaint on 24 March 2023, and the landlord subsequently provided a stage one response on 28 March 2023, which included the following:
1. Regarding the adaptations, it noted these required an OT report. It requested that any OT report be sent to its Aids and Adaptations team.
2. Regarding the flood repair works, it apologised for the delays and explained this had been caused by a significant backlog of works. It provided the details for its repairs manager and requested he provide his availability for works to commence.
3. It concluded that the complaint was not upheld.
The resident subsequently escalated his complaint on 31 March 2023. This was acknowledged by the landlord on 12 April 2023, and it committed to provide a stage two response by 12 May 2023.
As of 5 June 2023, the resident had not received a further response or any further updates. Following his request for an update, the landlord provided its stage two response on 14 June 2023, which included the following:
1. Regarding the repairs, it reiterated that its repair team had been dealing with flood repairs to 300 impacted homes. It acknowledged that this had been poorly coordinated. It also explained there had been a changeover in staff who had failed to pass on relevant information. It further acknowledged that there had been many emails not responded to and that its communication had been poor throughout the period of the complaint, for which it apologised.
2. It noted that it had attended in December 2022 and identified works, but that these had not been actioned at that time. It had subsequently commenced works on 26 April 2023, which had now been completed.
3. It recognised the impact its delays had had on the resident and his family. It offered £350 for the delays and a further £250 for its poor communication.
4. Regarding the adaptations, it acknowledged that it had had the OT report since October 2021 and that no progress had been made since then. It further acknowledged that it had failed to follow up with the OT at the time to determine what was required. It had attempted to contact the OT, but it appeared they were no longer contactable.
5. It explained it would assess the property for an access ramp, but that if this was not possible, it would require a new OT assessment to determine what other options there were. It advised it would assist in this process. It offered £350 compensation to reflect its failings.
6. It noted that the resident had previously attempted to raise formal complaints but that these had not been acknowledged. It also noted that it had failed to provide meaningful updates about the outstanding works in its stage one response. It offered £150 to reflect the inconvenience this caused.
7. It offered £100 for its delay in acknowledging the resident’s escalation required and a further £50 for the delay to its stage two response.
8. In total, it offered £1,250 compensation.
It is not evident that any works were subsequently arranged, and so the landlord provided a revised offer of compensation on 29 June 2023, which included the following:
1. It reiterated its offer of £350 compensation for the delays to the flood repair works.
2. It increased its offer relating to the delays to the adaptation works to £500.
3. It increased its offer relating to its overall poor service delivery across the period of the complaint to £500.
4. It increased its offer for failing to acknowledge the resident’s earlier complaint to £250.
5. It increased its offer for its overall poor complaints handling to £250.
6. It reiterated its offer of £50 for the delays to its stage two response.
7. In total, it made a revised compensation offer of £1,900.
On 12 July 2023, the landlord advised that the works required would exceed £20,000. As such, it required a further assessment in order to obtain a ‘disabled facilities grant’. As of November 2024, the resident has advised this service that there has been a significant delay in the local authority arranging an assessment, which is still pending. The resident has also noted that he reiterated concerns about interim repairs in the garden in September 2024, but that no action has been taken.

Assessment and findings

Policies and procedures

The landlord operates an aids and adaptations policy. This policy notes that, while some minor adaptations can be completed “without delay,” such as internal grab rails or the repositioning of a socket, it will otherwise require an OT report to inform the required works. Where works will exceed £1,000, the landlord will apply for a disabled facilities grant, made through the local authority.
The landlord operates a responsive repairs policy. The policy notes that it is the landlord’s responsibility to repair trip hazards in paths in outside spaces. It will seek to complete ‘standard’ repairs within 20 working days.
The landlord operates a two stage complaints policy. It will acknowledge a complaint within five working days. It will seek to provide a stage one response within 10 working days of a complaint and a stage two response within 20 working days of an escalation.

Adaptations

As noted above, in most instances, the landlord’s adaptations policy requires that the resident obtain an OT report. In his initial communications with the landlord in November 2020, the resident queried if the landlord could consider the adaptations without the need for an OT report. However, given that it was not clear precisely what was required or how to achieve it, it was reasonable for the landlord to request an OT report.
It is not disputed that the resident provided the landlord with the OT report in October 2021 and again in February 2022. Additionally, the landlord should reasonably have been aware that the resident expected it to take action given the multiple formal complaints the resident made throughout this period. These complaints, however, were not acknowledged or responded to. The landlord’s complaints handling has been considered further below.
Once the landlord had acknowledged a complaint in March 2023, its stage one response requested that the resident obtain an OT report. This would have been considerably frustrating for the resident, who had already repeatedly provided the landlord with the report. It also demonstrated a significant failing in the landlord’s stage one investigation. Had it discussed the complaint with the resident or consulted its own records, it should reasonably have known it held an OT report, which it failed to take action on.
In its stage two response, the landlord appropriately acknowledged it had received an OT report in October 2021 and acknowledged its failure to take action. While it noted the report was not specific as to what was required, it also acknowledged that it had failed to make enquiries with the OT, despite their invitation to discuss the matter further. It also recognised the ongoing impact this had, given that the OT was no longer contactable. It also recognised the distress and inconvenience it had caused and offered £350.
At this point, it appropriately committed to further inspections; however, it is evident it failed to do so. It therefore appropriately revisited its offer of compensation and increased it to £500. It also offered an additional £250 in relation to its overall poor service delivery. (£500 divided between this element of the complaint and its flood repair response, considered below).
It subsequently determined that, due to the cost of the required works, it needed to apply for a disabled facilities grant. This step was in line with its policy, and it appropriately kept the resident informed. The resident has since informed this service that this process has been delayed due to the ongoing need for the local authority to make a further assessment. While this delay is beyond the landlord’s control, a recommendation has been made below to make enquiries with the local authority and to provide an update to the resident.
While the landlord’s offer of compensation may be proportionate to the impact caused by the delays to the adaptation works, this was not the only element to this complaint. It is evident that, in addition to the adaptation works, the resident has repeatedly queried whether repairs could be completed to the garden path and steps in the interim. He also provided photographic evidence which depicted his concerns. The landlord also identified the need for possible repairs, as per its email dated 21 June 2021, in which it noted that repairs were required to the steps.
Given the safety concerns expressed by the resident, the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to provide its position on the repairs and to action them as required. As per its repairs policy, this should have been within 20 working days of the resident’s initial reports. However, despite the resident’s reports and its own identification that repairs were required, the landlord failed to action the repairs or otherwise provide its position. This would have been significantly distressing for the resident and would have impacted the enjoyment of his outside area. The landlord has not acknowledged or addressed this failing as part of its formal responses or offered of redress.
In summary, there have been significant and repeated failings to take action on the OT report provided by the resident. However, the landlord has acknowledged these failings, progressed the works, and has sought to provide redress for its failings. However, the redress offered is not proportionate to the additional distress and inconvenience caused by its failure to consider or otherwise complete interim repairs, despite multiple opportunities to do so. Therefore, a finding of maladministration has been made in the circumstances.
Given the failings identified with the OT report, the repeated missed opportunities to address the interim repairs, and the impact this had on the resident, an order for £1,250 has been made. This is made up of £500 for the landlord’s failures to address the OT report, £500 to consider interim repairs, and £250 for its poor communication. This order replaces the landlord’s previous offer.

Repairs

It is not disputed that the resident reported repair issues as a result of a flood in July 2021. As noted above, the landlord’s repairs policy notes that it should seek to address these issues within 20 working days. In its formal responses, the landlord explained that the flood impacted a large number of properties, which affected its ability to address the repairs in a timely manner. The Ombudsman understands that there can be reasonable delays to repairs, such as where there are issues with resources that are beyond a landlord’s control. However, in such instances, the landlord should ensure there is a high degree of communication to measure a resident’s expectations and to keep them informed.
In this case, the landlord has acknowledged that not only did it poorly coordinate its repair response, but it also failed to effectively communicate. This meant that the resident had to expend time and trouble repeatedly chasing updates, which would have been distressing. Even when the landlord’s surveyor did attend some eight months after the resident’s reports, the landlord continued to fail to provide meaningful updates.
Based on the landlord’s internal communications, there was a clear failure in record keeping, as its own staff were unclear what was required and who was responsible. This further delayed its response and prolonged the distress caused to the resident.
In its formal responses, the landlord appropriately recognised its poor service delivery and communication, for which it apologised. It also noted it had repeatedly failed to action works and appropriately provided an update that the works had now been completed. It offered £350 to reflect the impact of the delays and a further £250 for its poor communication across this period. This service’s remedies guidance notes that compensation between £100 and £600 is appropriate for instances where the landlord’s failure has adversely affected the resident but where there has been no permanent impact and where the landlord has acknowledged its failings. Given the landlord’s acknowledgement, apology, and offer of compensation, a finding of reasonable redress has been made for this element of the complaint.

Complaints handling

The landlord has acknowledged that the resident sought to raise several formal complaints between December 2021 and July 2022. As per the landlord’s policy and this service’s Complaints Handling Code (the Code), the landlord should acknowledge a formal complaint within a reasonable timeframe or otherwise provide a position on why it will not consider a complaint. In this case, the landlord repeatedly failed to acknowledge the resident’s complaints. This would have been considerably frustrating and caused him to have to expend time and trouble making further complaints. While this may have been due to a failure in its system, the Ombudsman expects the landlord to have sufficiently robust systems in place, and so this would not excuse this failing.
The landlord eventually acknowledged a complaint in March 2023 and provided a stage one response within a reasonable timeframe. However, it missed the opportunity to acknowledge its previous complaint handling errors and offer compensation at this point.
Following the resident’s escalation request on 31 March 2023, the landlord did not acknowledge the complaint until 12 April 2023. In its stage two response, the landlord appropriately acknowledged that this was outside of the timeframes noted in its policy and offered £100 compensation for the impact this had caused. The landlord later increased its offer to £250 to reflect its overall poor complaint handling. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, this offer was proportionate in the circumstances.
The landlord committed to provide a stage two response by 12 May 2023; however, it did not provide the response on this date. Should a response be delayed, the landlord’s policy notes that the landlord should keep the resident informed and provide a new timeframe. This approach is in line with that in the Code. However, the landlord did not do this. This meant he had to expend further time and trouble chasing an update. In its stage two response, the landlord recognised its delay and offered £50 compensation to reflect the distress and inconvenience this had caused. This offer was proportionate to the impact caused in the circumstances.
In its stage two response, the landlord took the opportunity to recognise its previous failures to acknowledge the resident’s complaints. It offered £150, which it later increased to £250. In total, it offered £550 in relation to the failings identified with its complaints handling.
In summary, while there were failures in the landlord’s complaints handling, it appropriately recognised these failings and apologised. It took the opportunity to review its offers of compensation, and its final offer was proportionate to the impact caused and in line with this service’s remedies guidance. Therefore, a finding of reasonable redress has been made in relation to the landlord’s complaints handling.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s request for adaptations in the garden.
In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Scheme, and in the Ombudsman’s opinion, there was reasonable redress offered by the landlord for its service failure in respect of its:
1. Response to the resident’s reports of repair issues following a flood.
2. Complaints handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay compensation of £1,250 for any distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its failings relating to the adaptations.
This replaces the landlord’s previous offer of £750. This amount (less any amount already paid by the landlord as part of its previous offer) must be paid within six weeks of the date of this determination.

Recommendations

Within six weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord is to:
1. Reiterate its offer of £600 in relation to the delays to the repairs, if this is yet to have been accepted.
2. Reiterate its offer of £550 in relation to its poor complaints handling, if this is yet to have been accepted.
3. Make enquiries with the local authority and to provide an update to the resident regarding the disabled facilities grant.