Notting Hill Genesis (202321625)

Background

1. The resident lives in a basement flat with her son and daughter. She said she had issues with the heating and hot water not working when she moved into her property. There were then intermittent problems with the heating and hot water systems which have now been resolved. The property also had damp and mould issues. The resident has since received a settlement for all issues complained about under a pre-action protocol.

What the complaint is about

2. The resident’s complaint is about the landlord’s handling of heating and hot water system repairs, and the presence of damp and mould.
3. We have also considered the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

4. The landlord offered redress to the resident through the “pre-action protocol”, which, in our opinion, satisfactorily resolves the complaint about the landlord’s handling of heating and hot water system repairs, and the presence of damp and mould.
5. We have found no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of heating and hot water system repairs, and the presence of damp and mould

6. The landlord failed to communicate effectively about heating and hot water repairs, leaving the resident uncertain about when it would complete the work. It did not complete repairs within its policy timeframes and failed to act proactively on contractor reports of damp. Although the landlord apologised for its failings and offered compensation, its initial compensation offer did not reflect the distress and inconvenience caused. The resident initiated a Pre-Action Protocol for Housing Condition Claims and subsequently agreed a £1000 settlement with the landlord. This settlement was fair, reasonable, and aligned with our Dispute Resolution Principles, representing appropriate redress for the failings identified.

The complaint handling

7. The landlord handled the resident’s complaint in line with its own policies and procedures.

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.

What we have not looked at

8. The resident stated that the damp and mould in her property had negatively affected the health of the household and the living conditions had put her daughter in hospital. The resident also complained about her son receiving a burn by an exposed pipe in his bedroom. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments regarding the health and injury of those who lived in the property. However, we cannot draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for effects on health and wellbeing. Matters of personal injury or damage to health, their investigation and compensation, are not part of the complaints process. They are more appropriately addressed by the courts or the landlord’s liability insurer (if it has one), as a personal injury claim. We have, however, considered whether any failings by the landlord have caused distress and inconvenience to the resident.
9. In the resident’s complaint to us she raised issues with a mice infestation. In the interest of fairness, the scope of this investigation is limited to the issues raised during the resident’s formal complaint. This is because the landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction with its actions prior to our involvement. Any new issues that have not been subject to a formal complaint can be raised directly with the landlord and progressed as a new formal complaint if required.

The landlord’s handling of heating and hot water system repairs, and the presence of damp and mould

10. Our jurisdiction guidance states that “a threat of possible court action is not, in itself, legal action and will not normally take a matter outside our jurisdiction.” There has been no evidence provided that the case went to court and the landlord agreed the disrepair settlement with the resident, through her solicitor. Therefore, we have considered the settlement as part of our investigation.
11. The resident’s tenancy agreement states that the landlord will keep in good repair and proper working order the installations in the property for the supply of heating and hot water. Landlord’s need to make sure their homes are safe, warm, and free from hazards. When a resident reports a risk, the landlord should quickly inspect the property to check for hazards. They must determine if the home is safe and fit to live in. Ignoring hazards can lead to serious consequences for everyone involved. The landlord’s repairs policy states it is an emergency repair where there is a loss of heating and or hot water between October and March. This should be made safe within 24 hours. All repairs which are not an emergency are responsive repairs which should be attended to within 20 working days.  

Heating repair

12. The landlord was responsive to the resident’s service request on 5 June 2023 of having no heating and hot water. It appropriately attended within its repair policy guidelines for an emergency repair. The landlord found the storage heaters were working, however identified the resident appeared to have turned off, “the off-peak setting”. It also attended a service request on 6 July 2023 where the resident said 2 heaters weren’t turning off and others weren’t operating correctly. The landlord identified the storage heaters were working; however, the resident was unaware how to operate them. It showed her how to operate them which was a reasonable response. Although it is unclear if the resident received instructions on how to work them when moving into the property the landlord cannot be held responsible for any user error.  
13. On 11 September 2023 and 6 November 2023 the landlord’s contractor recommended it should replace the storage heaters due to their age and escalated this to its planners. The resident again reported that 2 storage heaters were not working on 17 November 2023. The landlord surveyed the property for heat loss on 20 November 2023. Its records state that all heaters were very hot when it attended, indicating either intermittent problems or user error. Although it was positive it had assessed them it took over 2 months to do so which was an unreasonable delay.
14. Two of the storage heaters were replaced on 10 January 2024, which was 4 months from when the contractor recommended, they should be upgraded. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have evidenced it had placed these on its programmed work schedule and kept the resident updated. It would also have been reasonable for the landlord to have considered upgrading all of the storage heaters in the property at the same time as 2 further heaters were identified for replacement on 8 February 2024.
15. These were fitted on 20 March 2024 however 1 of the heaters was not wired up until 16 April 2024 roughly around a month later. It would have been reasonable to expect the landlord to have appropriately planned the work and factored in the wiring of the second heater.  This delay caused the resident unnecessary distress and inconvenience during the winter months.
16. We have seen evidence the resident requested temporary heaters on 16 and 23 September 2023, however none of the engineers had them in their van and there is no evidence the landlord followed up on this.  It is unclear if the storage heaters were working at this time or if the resident was requesting additional heaters. We have seen no evidence the landlord followed this up after 23 September 2023, which considering there were vulnerabilities reported in the property was not an appropriate response.
17. Landlords have a responsibility to ensure timely and relevant communication with affected residents to manage expectations and minimise distress and frustration. The landlord has not evidenced it has done so in relation to the storage heaters which was not appropriate.

Hot water system repair

18. The landlord Identified a new hot water cylinder was required on 6 June 2023. We have seen evidence the landlord had a schedule of works completed in October 2022 where the heating and hot water were checked as part of its voids procedure. It identified no issues with the boiler or other heaters. It would appear the property was thereafter empty for 7 months which may have led to the faults appearing, however this cannot be determined. The property was thereafter without electricity in the lead up to the move which would have restricted the landlord’s ability to recheck the boiler and heaters. The landlord had appropriately followed its void property procedure and made best efforts, in the circumstances to ensure the property was habitable.  
19. The landlord’s internal records on 6 June 2023 stated that the resident had an immersion heater, which would suggest she had access to some hot water. However, it remains unclear whether this meant she had adequate washing facilities. The landlord’s records show it acted proactively by conducting a reactive survey on 8 June 2023 and contacting the relevant department to complete the cylinder work that same day. The resident followed up with the landlord on 12 June and again on 5, 6, and 11 July 2023 reporting that she still had no hot water. She received timely responses to each enquiry, with the landlord advising that it was awaiting delivery of the necessary parts for the cylinder repair.
20. The landlord completed the cylinder repair on 11 July 2023 which was 26 working days from it being reported. Although the delay was inconvenient for the resident, it is understood that the landlord had limited control over the availability of replacement parts. However, the landlord failed to provide evidence that it kept the resident updated on the progress of the repair, which was inappropriate and caused unnecessary distress and inconvenience. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to show that it considered the resident’s lack of bathing facilities and explored options such as offering temporary accommodation under its decant policy or providing access to alternative shower facilities.
21. The landlord’s internal emails show the resident reported the boiler leaking on 4 September 2023. The landlord attended the following day which was within its repair policy guidelines and a reasonable response. It noted there was no leak discovered.
22. The landlord appropriately responded to the resident’s report on 15 September 2023 of smoke coming from the boiler by telling her to call the fire brigade, who reportedly turned the boiler off. There has been no report from the fire service to determine the cause of the steam or smoke from the boiler. The landlord attended the following day where it noted the thermostat was on maximum setting and the boost switch was also on, which may have caused excess steam, however this cannot be determined. We do however know the landlord did not record any damage resulting from a fire or excessive smoke. The landlord’s response was reasonable. 

Damp and mould

23. The resident first raised the possibility of damp within the property in May 2023. An internal landlord email trail said that there had been a previous leak which may have caused historical damp. It had measured the humidity level with readings below 20 which it deemed as low. The resident had stated a carpet fitter had measured the floor with high readings of between 88.5 and 99.9. The landlord had committed to have dehumidifiers placed in the property to show the resident there was no damp issues and questioned the carpet fitters measuring device. The landlord on 2 occasions asked the resident to contact it when she was ready to receive the dehumidifiers but did not get a response. The landlord had satisfied itself that there was limited damp within the property and it was therefore reasonable for it to not chase the resident any further.
24. On 5 September 2024 the landlord’s contractor identified there was damp and mould in the hallway cupboard beneath the boiler. On 22 September 2023 its contractor noted there was now mould on the ceilings of multiple rooms and in the cupboard. The landlord’s repair log shows it created a work order on 26 September 2023 and completed a mould wash and repaint on 20 October 2023. Although the landlord did not have a damp and mould policy in place at the time the Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Damp and Mould (published October 2021) recommends that landlords should ensure that their responses to reports of damp and mould are timely and reflect the urgency of the issue. We also recommend for landlords to consider resident’s vulnerabilities when responding to reports of damp and mould. The household had young children within the property who can be more vulnerable to the presence of damp and mould. The landlord’s failure to action the initial report on 5 September 2024 likely resulted in the mould appearing throughout the property. The landlord’s overall response was therefore not reasonable and it did not evidence it had considered any possible vulnerabilities.

Further assessment

25. We have seen the resident chasing the landlord for answers, in particular when it contacted it 4 times over June and July 2023. Although the landlord was responsive to these requests landlords have a duty to be proactive and ensure the resident is made aware of what is happening and when it is happening. This reduces the need for the resident to have to chase a response. It can also help the resident make plans to reduce the inconvenience of losing heating and hot water. We have not seen timely communication from it providing such updates which was not a reasonable response.
26. Within its complaint responses the landlord apologised for the distress and inconvenience caused by the injury to the child and the repair delays. It explained that it was only cold water that would travel through that pipe. It also explained the actions it would take to ensure the pipe was covered (which it did) and that it would not happen again, which was a reasonable response. It identified the resident’s concerns about her daughter’s asthma and the effects the property condition was having on her. It appropriately had its housing officer deal with that directly. 
27. The landlord told the resident that the wiring of the boiler had been checked out by its electrician and reassured her there had been no issue with the wiring. It apologised that its contractor had previously told her that it had been wired incorrectly. It apologised that she had been made to believe it was dangerous and for the upset that may have caused. It committed to have a damp and mould inspection completed and to have the heating and hot water system resolved to her satisfaction as soon as possible. It stated her overall situation deserved a more prompt and urgent response than she received and offered her £150 compensation.
28. The landlord’s offer of compensation and an apology was insufficient considering the delays and lack of appropriate communication. The resident, through her solicitor issued a letter of claim to the landlord on 14 December 2023, for a disrepair claim relating to the boiler, damp and mould, rotten windows and a mice infestation. From the evidence provided it appears the landlord handled the claim under the Pre-Action Protocol for Housing Conditions Claims.
29. On 5 August 2024 the resident’s solicitor accepted the offer of £1,000 in full and final settlement of the claims for disrepair of the property. The landlord committed to complete the works set out in the surveyor’s report within 120 days of the settlement. It was appropriate the landlord completed all works agreed by the settlement, within the 120 days. It is of note that the resident, dissatisfied with the issue of the heating and hot water system, had the manufacturer attend who found no faults with the system. The landlord suggested replacing the timer to a digital one. We have made a recommendation for it to carry out this upgrade, if it has not already done so.
30. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of heating and hot water issues and damp and mould prior to the resident’s letter of claim would normally be considered as maladministration. We would usually order compensation of between £100 to £600 where the impact of the landlord’s actions on the resident was significant, but not permanent. In this instance, the failings identified had no permanent effect on the overall service provided. While it should not have taken the involvement of a solicitor to prompt the landlord to act it is noted that it was proactive in its response to the repairs the surveyor identified. It completed most of those repairs before the settlement was agreed and the remainder shortly after. As the landlord has already offered the resident a total of £1,150 to acknowledge the impact of its failings, we consider the offer to be reasonable redress.

31. The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response on 13 October 2023 which was 15 working days after she made her complaint on 22 September 2023. This was within the 15-working days (including 5 days to acknowledge the complaint) timeframe of its complaints policy and the Housing Ombudsman Service Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
32. The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response on 17 January 2024 which was 21 working days after she escalated her complaint on 14 December 2023. This was within the 25-working days (including 5 days to acknowledge the escalation) timeframe of its complaints policy and the Code.

Learning

33. The landlord showed learning by committing to review its policy and procedures. It has since published its policy on damp and mould.  

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

34. The landlord did not provide us with any complaint acknowledgements at stage 1 or 2 of its complaints process. Although this did not have an impact on our overall decision, we are unsure if the landlord sent these to the resident. It would be reasonable for the landlord to ensure the acknowledgements were sent and provided to us. 

Communication

35. The landlord’s communication was poor; it did not always respond to the resident’s enquiries in a timely manner.