Notting Hill Genesis (202319430)

Background

1. The resident’s flat was a new build. When the resident moved in in 2022 the landlord noted on the handover sheet that the balcony door did not close or lock. She subsequently reported this to the landlord. The resident complained about the length of time it took the landlord to repair the balcony door.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about:
   1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of the broken balcony door.
   2. How the landlord responded to the complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of the broken balcony door.
4. There was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

5. In summary, we found the landlord:
   1. took too long to accept responsibility for the repairs to the balcony door, failed to communicate effectively with the resident, and did not attempt to carry out any temporary repairs to mitigate the issues faced by the resident. The compensation it offered was not proportionate to the impact on the resident.
   2. acknowledged the service failures in its complaint handling and provided redress that was sufficient to put right the impact on the resident, however the landlord did not identify any learning to prevent a recurrence.

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.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

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.

6. The landlord and resident have provided evidence that confirms the case is ongoing. As discussed with the resident, we can only assess events that occurred up to the date of the final complaint response on 2 February 2024. If she remained unhappy with the action or lack of action beyond this date, she would need to raise a new complaint with the landlord and provide it with the opportunity to investigate the issues raised and provide a formal complaint response.
7. The resident completed the handover with the landlord on 25 March 2022. The landlord has not provided a copy of the handover paperwork, but we have received a copy from the resident. This confirmed the balcony door did not close or lock. On 30 March 2022 the landlord raised an inspection of the door. There is no evidence this was completed or what the findings were. This is a record keeping failure.
8. The resident raised the issue again on 21 April 2022. The landlord assigned the repair to the developer the same day and it offered an appointment for 6 May 2022 which was the next available appointment. This was reasonable, however due to several no access visits, the developer did not inspect the door until 7 July 2022. It advised the fault was not a defect and the dent was likely caused by the wind blowing the door and hitting the balcony.
9. The resident confirmed the fault was documented at the handover and asked when it would be repaired. The landlord completed its end of defect inspection on 26 July 2022 when it confirmed the developer’s initial findings. The resident raised a complaint as she was unhappy with the findings and lack of action. We have not seen a copy of the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response, therefore the outcome is not known. This has been addressed in the complaint handling section of the report.
10. There is a gap in evidence through to 12 October 2022 when the landlord told the resident it was waiting for quotes from a contractor. On 24 November 2022 it confirmed it had approved the work, and the contractor would contact her with an installation date. This was reasonable, however by 9 January 2023, no progress had been made and on 24 January 2023, the landlord asked the resident to send photographs and measurements of the door so it could try and secure a new contractor quicker. The resident provided the information requested, however, it was not reasonable of the landlord to request this of her. The resident was not qualified to record such accurate measurements, and if the measurements were incorrect, it might have caused further issues and delays to the completion of the repairs.
11. There was a further gap in evidence until 27 July 2023 when the landlord told the resident a different contractor would be in touch in the hope a replacement door could be found. It is noted the landlord faced challenges with securing a contractor, however, it would have been reasonable for it to identify any temporary repairs to mitigate the impact the issues were having on the resident. There is no evidence the landlord did this.
12. A contractor attended the property on 11 September 2023 and took measurements for the door. A different contractor attended on 19 October 2023, however by 22 January 2024, there was no evidence of any progress or communication to the resident.
13. On 2 February 2024 the landlord provided its final complaint response. It confirmed it accepted responsibility for the repair and highlighted the problems it had faced. It confirmed it had successfully identified a contractor who could do the work and would request a visit and a quote before proceeding with the work.
14. The landlord acknowledged the lack of communication and agreed improved communication could have resulted in a quicker resolution. It offered £250 compensation for the service failures and distress and inconvenience caused. According to its compensation policy, this was for a service failure with a medium impact that had failed to meet service standards and had caused inconvenience and distress for the resident. As the resident had waited almost 2 years for the repairs to be done, the level of compensation was not appropriate for the frustration, distress and inconvenience to the resident.
15. The landlord committed to providing weekly updates until the repairs were completed. This was reasonable, however it has acknowledged it did not meet this commitment, and this caused the resident further inconvenience.
16. In summary, we find maladministration. The landlord took too long to accept responsibility for the repairs and did not attempt any temporary repairs to mitigate the impact on the resident. It did not communicate effectively with the resident throughout, and a lack of contractor relationship management contributed to the delays. The multiple visits by different contractors led to increased inconvenience to the resident and is likely to have caused frustration as a result.
17. The landlord apologised for the lack of communication, inconvenience and frustration caused. It highlighted the challenges it faced but did not identify any learning to prevent such failures in future cases. In line with our remedies guidance, we have ordered the landlord to pay the resident additional compensation of £350. This sum recognises the likely distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s delay in completing the repairs and for its poor communication with her.
18. The resident informed us on 18 November 2025, a further 21 months after the final complaint response, that another contractor had visited the property in October 2025 and said the door could be repaired without it being replaced. She said the repairs were still outstanding, and she was still waiting for a date as to when the work would be completed. We have made orders for the landlord to take action in relation to the balcony doors, if this is still outstanding. We have also made a recommendation to consider further compensation for the period from 2 February 2024 once the balcony door issue has been resolved.

19. There is no evidence to confirm when the resident first tried to raise her complaint. The landlord contacted her on 15 August 2022 and confirmed there had been a glitch in the system after a member of staff had left which had prevented her from raising her complaint. It confirmed it would investigate the complaint and respond in due course. The landlord logged the complaint on 19 August 2022. This was a record keeping failure by the landlord and makes it difficult to determine how long the resident had to wait for her complaint to be logged. Furthermore, the landlord should have processes in place to prevent such issues occurring when a member of staff leaves the organisation.
20. We have not seen a copy of the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response. We are therefore unable to confirm if it complied with its complaint policy in terms of timescales, or if it fully addressed the issues raised by the resident. This also is a record keeping failure and raises concerns regarding the landlord’s complaint management.
21. The resident escalated her complaint on 27 March 2023. This was followed by further requests in July, August and December 2023. The landlord acknowledged it on 21 December 2023 and provided its final complaint response on 2 February 2024, 217 days later. The landlord’s responses were delayed. This was not appropriate as it was not in line with its policy which states it would acknowledge complaints within 2 working days and respond to a stage 2 complaint within 20 working days.
22. The landlord acknowledged the complaint handling failure and offered £250 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused. This was in line with the landlord’s compensation for a failing that markedly failed to meet the standards and caused inconvenience and distress. The landlord did not however identify any learning as to how it could prevent a recurrence of such failures. This was not reasonable.
23. In summary, we find service failure. Due to a lack of evidence, we have not been able to confirm the landlord complied with its complaint policy. Furthermore, the landlord failed to respond to the resident’s complaint escalation in line with its complaint policy. This meant it missed an opportunity to address her concerns sooner and left the resident waiting for a resolution. The landlord should have conducted a timely and appropriate investigation in line with its complaints policy and responded to the resident’s concerns. Further, it would have likely made her feel frustrated and prevented her from exhausting the landlord’s internal complaints procedure so that she could bring the matter to us for an independent investigation.
24. The compensation offered was appropriate and in line with our remedies guidance for a finding of maladministration where the landlord has acknowledged its failings and made an attempt to put things right. However, the landlord did not identify any learning. Therefore, while we have not ordered the landlord to pay the resident any additional compensation, we have ordered it to complete a case review so it can assess its failings and highlight any learning to prevent a recurrence.

Learning

25. Landlords must have an effective complaint process to provide a good service to residents. An effective complaint process means landlords can fix problems quickly, learn from mistakes and build good relationships with residents. In this case the landlord’s complaint process lacked customer focus and took too long. The landlord did not communicate well with the resident about the complaint or about the balcony door repair.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

26. We expect landlords to maintain a robust record of contacts and repairs. This is because clear, accurate, and easily accessible records provide an audit trail and enhance landlords’ ability to identify and respond to problems when they arise. The failure to create and record information accurately can result in landlords not taking appropriate and timely action, missing opportunities to identify that actions were wrong or inadequate, and contributing to inadequate communication and redress.
27. The evidence shows the landlord has failed to maintain adequate records, which has impacted our ability to carry out a thorough investigation, as highlighted at various points throughout this report.

Communication

28. Where there is a delay in completing repairs, we expect landlords to be proactive in:
    1. communicating the cause of delays to residents.
    2. explaining to residents what it intends to do about the delays.
    3. identifying what it can do to mitigate the impact of delays on residents.