Our Business Plan 2026-27 consultation is now open. 

Take part in the consultation

Notting Hill Genesis (202335114)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202335114

Notting Hill Genesis (NHG)

22 August 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:
    1. Handling of the resident’s concerns that her front door may not be fire safety compliant.
    2. Handling of the redecoration of the resident’s bathroom and kitchen, following two separate leaks from the flat above her.
    3. Complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The property is a flat in a 4 storey block.
  2. On 25 August 2022 a fire safety company carried out a fire risk assessment (FRA) on the block. They confirmed that the landlord followed a “stay put” policy. The landlord’s website advises “Stay-put policies are recommended by fire brigades for purpose-built blocks designed to contain fires. If the fire is not in your home, but in another part of the building, you will be safer staying in your home unless the heat or smoke is affecting you”. The FRA recommended that any front doors with large gaps should be either repaired to reduce the threshold gap to a maximum of 3mm or have a threshold seal capable of resisting cold smoke fitted or be replaced if necessary. The recommendation was classed as a C priority to be actioned within 30 months, which was by March 2025.
  3. On 17 November 2022 the resident reported the gaps around her door to the landlord and it raised a repair to its contractor.
  4. In December 2022 the landlord removed the communal smoke alarms. The resident asked the landlord for an update on her report on 5 January 2023 and the landlord contacted its contractor. The resident has advised that the contractor inspected the door during January and agreed to replace it. The repair record just notes that unspecified follow on work were required. On 26 February 2023 the contractor asked the landlord to raise a new repair because of the length of time since it had originally been raised.
  5. On 27 April 2023 the landlord issued a stage one complaint response which mentioned the front door (in addition to a leak from the flat above the resident). It is not clear when this complaint was raised. Its response stated that its fire safety team had confirmed that the resident’s door was on its program to be replaced by 2025 and that it would see if this date could be brought forward.
  6. On 15 June 2023 the resident raised a complaint. She said the landlord’s contractors had been carrying out redecoration of her bathroom, following a previous leak from the flat above and that their poor workmanship had damaged the tiles. On 6 July 2023 the resident contacted the landlord for an update on the front door. On 19 July 2023 the landlord emailed the resident to say it was aware she had a complaint outstanding, apologised for the delay and said it hoped to issue a response by “Monday” (25 July 2023).It said, that it had been trying to bring the date of the door replacement forward and asked if the bathroom repairs had been completed.
  7. Between 24 July 2023 and 26 July 2023, the resident emailed the landlord several times to update it that there had been a leak from the flat upstairs washing machine into her kitchen. She said the contractor who attended had experienced difficulty gaining access to the flat upstairs. She said there had been several other occasions over the years where contractors had difficulty accessing the flat upstairs to address leaks. She also mentioned she had outstanding repairs for her bathroom and front door. On 26 July 2023 the landlord responded to say it was raising a new complaint to address all of her points.
  8. On 2 August 2023 after an inspection of the resident’s property, the landlord’s surveyor recommended the following:
    1. Bathroom – replace 30+ damaged tiles, regrout and repaint ceiling and wall.
    2. Front door – Replace the frame and add fire resistant luminescent strips
    3. Kitchen —  resealing and painting of the ceiling after inspection of the flat above.
  9. The landlord issued a stage 1 complaint response on 23 August 2023. It said:
    1. Although it had addressed the front door in a previous complaint It had made new comments about the door in this complaint.
    2. It had previously been unsuccessful in trying to bring the door replacement date forward but had now instructed contractors to carry out the works.
    3. It had confirmed there was no current leak coming from the flat above. However, it had issued the neighbour in that flat with a written warning about not providing access.
    4. It apologised that its complaint response was late and awarded £50 for that service failure and £50 as a goodwill gesture.
  10. The resident made several requests that the landlord provide her with schedule of work before repairs were completed. On 28 August 2023 contractors arrived to carry out work. However, the resident declined the work as she had not received a schedule of work. On 18 October 2023 the resident escalated her complaint. She said the front door had still not been replaced, the redecoration of the bathroom including replacement of 86 tiles had not been completed and neither had the redecoration of her kitchen.
  11. In its stage 2 response on 21 November 2023 the landlord:
    1. Apologised that the response was 4 days late and awarded £50.00 compensation for that.
    2. Said that the surveyor concluded that 36 tiles should be replaced rather than 86 and that it would be replacing 36 in line with his recommendation.
    3. Said that the surveyor had recommended that the front door be repaired. That it was aware that the resident had requested a fire risk assessment as she felt it should be replaced. However, one had been carried out in March 2023 and the fire team had allowed until 2025 for the door to be replaced. In the meantime, it would be repaired
    4. Awarded compensation for £100 for its initial delay in inspecting the front door and £50 for any inconvenience that caused.
    5. It said it had failed to listen to the resident’s repeated request for a schedule of works  and had now included the schedule of works with its  complaint response.
  12. The resident contacted this Service as she was unhappy with the landlord’s response as the work to redecorate her bathroom and kitchen was still outstanding and her door had not been replaced despite her concerns that it was not fire safety compliant. She said the outcome she sought was for the work to be carried out in a timely and professional manner, including replacement of 86 tiles and for compensation be paid for the delay in completing the work.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation.

  1. On 27 April 2023 the landlord issued a stage 1 response that mentioned the resident’s front door. As that complaint does not appear to have exhausted the landlord’s internal complaint process (ICP) we have not investigated that complaint. However, details of that complaint have been included in this report to add background and context to the complaint that did complete the landlord’s ICP on 21 November 2023.
  2. This is in line with paragraph 42(a) of our scheme, the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion are made prior to having exhausted a member’s 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.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns that her front door may not be fire safety compliant.

  1. When the fire risk assessment (FRA) was carried out in August 2022, the recommendations regarding those doors with gaps were categorised as C priority. This meant that the landlord had until 28 March 2025 to act on the recommendations. Therefore, it was reasonable that the landlord did not take immediate action. As landlords have to work within a budget it was also reasonable that it added the resident’s door to its fire safety team’s programme for replacement doors, with a view to replacing it within that timeframe.
  2. The landlord’s repairs policy states that it will attend emergency repairs within 4 hours and aims to complete standard repairs within 20 working days. Therefore, once the resident reported the gaps around the door in November 2022, although action was not required from a fire safety point of view, it would have been reasonable for the landlord’s repairs team to have inspected the door within 20 working days. However, although the landlord appropriately raised a job as a standard repair, it failed to attend within that timeframe.
  3. This resulted in the resident chasing the repair on 5 January 2023. The resident has advised that the contractor visited in January 2023 and advised that the door would be replaced. The original repair was closed on 26 February 2023 due to “additional work being required” and being “out of time”, which suggests there may have been a visit where it was ascertained that additional work was required. However, we have been unable to confirm from the records provided to us, whether or not the contractor agreed that the door was going to be replaced.
  4. However, what is evident is that the landlord advised the resident on more than one occasion that she was on its fire safety team’s programme for a replacement door by 2025 and that it was trying to bring those “works” forward. Therefore, when it said in its stage 1 response on 23 August 2023 that it had been liaising with its fire safety team “in trying to bring the date forward” and had now instructed its contractors to “carry out the works.” it is understandable that the resident interpreted that to mean that the door was being replaced.
  5. It is noted that the surveyor’s report from their inspection on 2 August 2023 recommends the door be repaired. It is further noted that it is reasonable for a landlord to act on the recommendations of its surveyor. However, it is clear in this case that it was the landlord’s poor communication of exactly what “works” were being carried out that led the resident to believe that the door was being replaced rather than repaired. This led to a situation where the contractors arrived to carry out repairs when the resident was expecting a replacement, and no work was completed due to this confusion. The poor communication about the door was a further failing by the landlord.
  6. There was further poor communication when the resident requested in August 2023 that an FRA be carried out. She was concerned that the gaps around the door, along with the removal of communal smoke alarms in December 2022 could be a fire risk. In its stage 2 response the landlord responded to this request by saying that it had carried out an FRA in March 2023. However, during this investigation when we requested a copy of that FRA the landlord confirmed that no FRA was carried out in March 2023. It also said to us that an FRA had been carried out in July 2024 and provided a copy of that report. However, on closer inspection of that report it was evident that it was only the printing date of the report that was in July 2024. The inspection date on the report was 25 August 2022.
  7. Therefore, it seems likely that the same confusion between the printing date and the inspection date, may have resulted in the landlord incorrectly stating that an FRA had been carried out in March 2023. It is important to note that, as the August 2022 FRA is valid until 28 September 2025 the landlord was under no obligation to carry out a further FRA. Therefore, it is the poor communication about the date of the FRA  that is the failing, rather than the fact that it did not carry out an FRA in March 2023. The landlord also confirmed to us that the reason it removed communal smoke alarms in December 2022 was to upgrade the system and to ensure compliance with the stay put evacuation policy.
  8. To conclude, although the landlord did appropriately acknowledge and award compensation of £150 for the original delay in inspecting the front door we have identified further failings in its handling of the resident’s concerns about the front door. Therefore, we do not consider the £150 to be reasonable redress. This has led to a finding of maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns that her front door may not be fire safety compliant. In line with our remedies guidance for cases of maladministration where the impact might include distress and inconvenience, and delays in getting matters resolved we will be ordering the landlord to pay a further £200 for this aspect of the complaint. As the landlord had already awarded £150 this will mean that the total compensation paid for this aspect of the complaint will be £350. The landlord has advised us that it replaced the front door in April 2024.

The landlord’s handling of the redecoration of the resident’s bathroom and kitchen, following two separate leaks from the flat above her.

  1. The landlord had arranged to redecorate the resident’s bathroom following a previous leak into it from the flat above. During those works, on 15 June 2023 the resident reported that the contractor’s poor workmanship had damaged the tiles in her bathroom. The landlord took appropriate steps to arrange for another contractor to remedy the poor workmanship and to continue with redecorating.  However, internal emails show that there was some difference of opinion over whether the tiles should be replaced. Therefore, the landlord’s decision to send a surveyor to inspect the bathroom on 2 August 2023 was appropriate.
  2. As the surveyor reported that 30+ tiles had been damaged it was reasonable that he recommended that 30+ tiles should be replaced. The resident reported that the surveyor had amended this to 86 tiles following a conversation with her. However, the evidence provided by the landlord does not make reference to this conversation so it has not been possible to confirm whether the surveyor agreed to replace 86 tiles. Without that evidence it was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the expertise of its surveyor. However, it is noted that the landlord has since agreed to replace 86 tiles.
  3. On 24 July 2023, when the resident reported that there had been difficulties gaining access to the flat above, in order to address a leak into her kitchen, the landlord acted appropriately by issuing a written warning to the resident in the flat above. This showed that the landlord was taking the issue of access seriously, and reminded the neighbour that they were not complying with their tenancy agreement. The landlord also took appropriate steps to arrange for its surveyor to inspect the kitchen at the same time as the bathroom and front door on 2 August 2023. The surveyors recommendation that the flat upstairs be inspected before work to redecorate the kitchen commenced was reasonable as it was important to establish that the leak had been resolved.
  4. Following this, in its stage 2 response on 21 November 2023 the landlord confirmed that the resident made repeated requests for it to provide a schedule of work for all her outstanding repairs before continuing with the work. This was a reasonable request and the landlord should have provided one within a reasonable time so that repairs could continue. However, it has confirmed that it failed to do so. Although it appropriately acknowledged this failing in its stage 2 response, it failed to apologise for it or to consider the impact this failing had on the resident.
  5. The landlord’s failure to provide a schedule of works meant that all work was still outstanding when the stage 2 response was issued on 21 November 2023. It also led to at least one occasion where contractors arrived expecting to carry out work and the resident had to explain that she was not prepared  for the work to be carried out without seeing a schedule of works first. This would understandably have been frustrating and stressful for the resident. In light of this failing and its impact on the resident we have made a determination of maladministration in respect of this aspect of the complaint .
  6. In line with our remedies guidance for cases of maladministration where the impact might include distress and inconvenience and delays in getting things resolved, we will be ordering the landlord to pay compensation of £250 for this failing. We will also be recommending that the landlord contact the resident to ensure that all repairs have now been completed.

Complaint handling.

  1. The landlord has a 2 stage complaints process. Its complaints procedure states that it will respond within 10 working days at stage 1 and within 20 working days at stage 2. Therefore, when the resident raised a complaint on 15 June 2023 about damage to her tiles it would have been appropriate for it to have issued its response within 10 working days of that date. When the resident contacted the landlord for an update on the front door on 6 July 2023, the landlord responded via email about the tiles and the door on 19 July 2023 and acknowledged that a complaint was outstanding. However, despite it saying it expected to issue a complaint response by 25 July 2023, there is no evidence of it doing so.
  2. After the resident contacted the landlord about the leak into her kitchen on 24 July 2023, it replied on 26 July 2023 to say it had opened a new complaint about all of the issues. However, although the stage 1 response it then issued on 23 August 2023 addressed access to the flat above and the resident’s front door, it did not specifically address the tiles. The landlord has provided no evidence of any other stage 1 complaint response being issued to address the tiles. Its response was also issued  21 working days after it said it had raised the new complaint on 26 July 2023, and 50 working days after the resident originally raised the complaint on 15 June 2023. Its response also failed to clarify whether the works that were going to be carried out to the door included replacement of the door or just repairs.
  3. The landlord did appropriately acknowledge that the stage 1 response was delayed and offered a total of £100 compensation for that. However, it did not clearly explain which specific complaints it was a response to. This would have been very confusing for the resident, as it was not clear if this was a response to the complaint she had raised on 15 June 2023, the new complaint the landlord had raised on 26 July 2023, or both. It also made it difficult to follow an audit trail of the various complaints whilst investigating this complaint.
  4. Once the complaint was escalated the landlord responded 4 days outside the 20 working day timeframe and awarded appropriate compensation of £50 for that. It took appropriate steps to apologise for the initial delay in inspecting the front door and awarded compensation of £100 for that failing and £50 for any inconvenience it caused. The response also lacked clarity when it referred to what compensation it had previously paid, as it referred to having paid £200 compensation at stage 1, when it appears to have only paid £100 compensation at stage 1.
  5. When the Ombudsman investigates a complaint, we would expect to see clear records, showing the journey of each complaint, from the date it was raised to the date the landlord issued its stage 2 response. Such records should include formal acknowledgments of complaints and escalations, and updates from the landlord explaining delays, or the approach it is going to take when there are multiple complaints. This kind of thorough information was severely lacking in this case. This was a further failing by the landlord.
  6. The landlord has awarded compensation of £100 for is late complaint response at stage 1 and £50 for its late complaint response at stage 2. However, due to the additional complaint handling failings identified in this report the Ombudsman does not consider this amount to be reasonable. Therefore, the Ombudsman has made a finding of maladministration in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling. In line with our remedies guidance for such cases we will be ordering the landlord to pay additional compensation of £200 for the impact of this failing, including distress and inconvenience. This will mean that the total amount of compensation paid for its complaint handling failings is £350.
  7. On 24 July 2024, the Ombudsman commented on the landlord’s complaint handling in another complaint brought to us by the same resident (202204365). In accordance with paragraph 54(g) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman ordered the landlord to undertake a senior management review of that case. The order stated that the review shouldinclude considering additional training on complaint handling in order to prevent such failings as complaint response delays, partial or incomplete responses to resident complaints, and missing complaint records.
  8. As the review should address the same kind of complaint handling failings that we have highlighted in this report, the Ombudsman has not made further orders or recommendations in relation to this aspect of the complaint.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns that her front door may not be fire safety compliant.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the redecoration of the resident’s bathroom and kitchen, following two separate leaks from the flat above her.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

  1. Within four weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Pay a further £200 compensation for the impact of its maladministration in respect of its handling of the resident’s concerns that her front door may not be fire safety compliant. It should also pay the £150 it previously awarded for this aspect of the complaint if it has not already done so.
    2. Pay £250 compensation for the impact of its maladministration in respect of its handling of the redecoration of the resident’s bathroom and kitchen, following two separate leaks from the flat above her
    3. Pay a further £200 compensation for the impact of its maladministration in respect of its complaint handling. It should also pay the £150 it previously awarded for this aspect of the complaint if it has not already done.
    4. Send a written apology to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
  2. The landlord is recommended to contact the resident to confirm that all repairs have now been completed.