Notting Hill Genesis (202409868)

Background

1. The resident has lived in the 3-bedroom house since 2021. She reported damp, and damaged walls and ceilings in the bathroom. The landlord completed repairs, but the problem continued. The resident asked us to investigate her complaint as she was dissatisfied with the time taken by the landlord to complete the repairs. The resident informed the landlord family members had respiratory health conditions as part of her stage 1 complaint.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and the associated repairs.
3. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. The landlord offered reasonable redress in response to reports of damp and the associated repairs.
5. The landlord offered reasonable redress for the handling of the complaint.

We have not made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

6. In summary, we found the landlord:
   1. acknowledged it had not managed the repairs effectively and the delays impacted the condition of the bathroom. The landlord offered redress that was appropriate and proportionate to reflect the impact on the resident and it highlighted the need for training to improve service delivery.
   2. provided redress which was sufficient to put right the impact on the resident for its failings identified in its complaint handling.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration, or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

7. On receipt of the resident’s report of damp, cracks and damage to the walls and ceiling in the bathroom, a contactor attended on 9 February 2023. This was appropriate as it was in line with its repair policy which states it would attend a standard repair within 20 working days, and in line with its damp and mould policy which states a visit will be made within 10 days of a report.
8. When the resident told the landlord the cracks had reappeared, the landlord confirmed the contractor would return. This was reasonable but there is no evidence to confirm the resident was told when this would happen. She had to spend time and effort contacting the landlord for updates. This was not reasonable and was a communication failure. The contractor returned on 13 March 2023 to complete further work in attempt to resolve the issue. This was reasonable and demonstrated the landlord complied with its repair responsibilities.
9. No further reports were received until 15 November 2023 when the resident reported the bathroom ceiling and walls were dripping with water when the shower was used, and the paint was sweating. The landlord asked appropriate questions regarding the ventilation, and although the resident responded the same day, it took the landlord 3 weeks to confirm the appointment with a contractor. This was a communication failure.
10. The contractor attended on 12 December 2023. It confirmed damp and mould and completed the remedial work on 3 January 2024. This was in line with policy. On 10 January 2024 the resident reported a repair regarding the painting of the walls. She said she believed the wrong paint had been used, and said the walls were dripping with water which was causing mould. On 16 January 2024 the contractor painted the walls with anti-condensation paint. This was reasonable, but the resident reported the paint had started to peel off again and the mould had returned.
11. A contractor attended on 21 March 2024. It told the landlord the extractor fan needed to be moved as it was next to a window and was not effective. There is no evidence the landlord responded to this until 17 April 2024 when it told the resident it was moving the fan to help with the ventilation, followed by the paint work. This was a reasonable proposal to help resolve the ongoing issue, but due to the quote approval process, the ordering of materials and a lack of communication from the contractor, the appointment to install the fan was not until 4 June 2024, 2 months later. During this time, there was no evidence of communication with the resident who kept asking for updates. This led to her submitting a complaint.
12. The contractor stated the resident had declined the relocation of the fan, but the resident disputed this. The evidence confirms she contacted the landlord on 4 June 2024 and said the contractor wanted to install a “big pipe” in the bathroom to connect the fan, and while she wanted the fan replaced, she did not want the pipe in the bathroom. The landlord did not respond until it provided its stage 1 complaint response on 27 June 2024 when it asked her how she wanted to proceed following her declining the work. It did not refer to the work required or seek alternative options regarding the pipework. This demonstrated a lack of understanding regarding the resident’s concern. This was not reasonable and delayed progress further.
13. The resident asked for the installation date and repair dates and a commitment to replaster the entire bathroom to address the mould and condensation. The landlord did not respond, and on 6 August 2024 she escalated her complaint. On the same day the landlord explained why the fan needed to be moved and said the contractor should complete the work “within a week.” It was not reasonable the resident had to escalate her complaint to receive an update on the work.
14. The evidence confirms the contractor attended on 12 August 2024 to replace the fan, however it noted the resident declined the work as she was still unhappy with the relocation. There is no evidence the landlord contacted the resident to discuss how it could progress the matter. This led to her spending more time and effort contacting the landlord for a resolution. She told the landlord the condition of the bathroom was getting worse, and it was affecting the family’s health and quality of life.
15. The fan was installed on or around 24 September 2024, 6 months after the contactor’s recommendation. It is not disputed there was a process to follow in terms of quotes, approvals and ordering of materials, but the time taken far exceeded its policy timescales. Furthermore, there were several occasions throughout this case when the landlord did not update the resident. This was a communication failure by the landlord.
16. Following the completion of the fan repairs, and despite the landlord advising the painting work would follow, the resident had to ask the landlord when the painting would be done. On 22 October 2024 the landlord confirmed it had asked an inspector to attend and confirm what work was need. There is evidence the landlord asked for an urgent inspection, and this took place on 31 October 2024. The inspector confirmed the required paintwork and asked the contractor to arrange an urgent appointment. The contractor completed the painting on 30 November 2024, 2 months after the fan was installed. This was not appropriate as it was not in line with policy and led to further inconvenience for the resident.
17. In its final complaint response, the landlord acknowledged the poor handling of the repairs. It referred to the delays in not addressing the fan issue quickly enough and the impact it had on the bathroom. It highlighted the communication failures between itself and the contractor throughout and highlighted the need for training to improve this.
18. The landlord offered £1,000 compensation. This was in line with its compensation policy for a serious failure in service delivery with a high impact and significant level of distress and inconvenience to the resident. This offer was also in line with our remedies guidance for a finding of maladministration where there was a significant impact on the resident and the redress needed to put things right was substantial. As such a finding of reasonable redress is appropriate.

19. The resident complained to the landlord on 28 May 2024, but there is no evidence of an acknowledgement. This was not appropriate as it was not in line with the landlord’s complaint policy which states it would acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days.
20. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint 20 working days after it was received. It took 63 working days to provide its final complaint response. The landlord’s responses exceeded the policy timescales of 10 working days for stage 1 complaints and 20 working days for stage 2 complaints. This was not appropriate.
21. The landlord acknowledged the delays in its complaint responses and offered £350 compensation in its final complaint response. This was in line with its compensation failure for a failure with medium impact on the resident. This was in line with our remedies guidance for a finding of maladministration where the landlord has acknowledged its failings and made some attempts to put things right. As such a finding of reasonable redress is appropriate.

Learning

22. It is reasonable for a landlord to complete repairs within a reasonable time. This is dependent on the circumstances and the nature of the repair. Where there is a delay the landlord should communicate these to the resident and explain what it intends to do about the delays, while looking for what it can do to mitigate the impact on the resident.