Notting Hill Genesis (202330411)

Background

1. The resident lives on the ground floor of a block of flats. She reported that her living room and bedroom windows were draughty and in poor condition. She has complained that the landlord has not properly repaired or replaced the windows.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to:
   1. Window repairs in the property.
   2. The complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. The was maladministration in the landlord’s response to window repairs in the property.
4. There was service failure in the landlord’s response to the complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

Response to the window repairs

5. The landlord did not deliver on its stage 2 commitment to repair the windows, leaving the issue unresolved. Poor communication and delays continued after its complaint response, showing a lack of learning from earlier failings. This prolonged the resident’s distress and undermined her confidence in the landlord’s ability to repair the windows.

Response to the complaint

6. The landlord offered reasonable financial redress for its delays and poor communication. However, it did not respond to the resident’s new concerns she raised at stage 2. This delayed the resident receiving a response and escalating her concerns.

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.

7. There were events that happened after the landlord issued its final complaint response. As these events related to the resident’s original complaint, we have decided that it is appropriate to investigate beyond the landlord’s complaint procedure. This investigation will focus on the landlord’s response to window repairs between March 2023 and July 2024.
8. On 1 March 2023 the resident reported that the bedroom and living room windows were draughty and difficult to open. The landlord’s contractor attended on 14 March 2023 and recommended replacing the living room window. This met the landlord’s Repairs policy which requires it to attend routine repairs within 20 working days. However, the contractor did not record whether the bedroom window needed any repairs. It missed the opportunity to investigate and provide a potential solution.
9. On 26 and 27 April 2024 the resident contacted the landlord for an update. She said the windows were rotten and her heating costs had increased, making it difficult to keep the property warm. The landlord’s Surveyor visited on 4 May 2023 and reported that the living room and bedroom window frames needed repairs and draught excluders. They also noted that the resident asked for double glazed windows due to the draught.
10. It was reasonable for the landlord to send its Surveyor following the contractor’s recommendation. The Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 requires landlords to keep windows safe, secure, and well-maintained. Inspecting the windows allowed the landlord to confirm the condition of them and whether they needed replacing. However, the landlord took 36 working days to visit after the contractor’s attendance and gave no reason for the delay. Its lack of communication did not align with its policy, which says it will keep residents informed about their repairs. This delay was unreasonable and caused the resident time and frustration in chasing the landlord.
11. On 24 May 2023 the Surveyor asked the Planned Works team to repair the windows and install draught excluders under the ongoing planned works programme. On 14 June 2023 the resident reported the windows could not close. The contractor attended on 20 June 2023 and sent a quote to the landlord to repair the windows. The landlord refused the quote and recorded that the repairs would be completed under the planned works.
12. The landlord’s policy says it will respond to emergency repairs within 24 hours, such as when a property is not secure. Leaving windows stuck open or closed for lengthy periods creates risks to security, ventilation, and fire safety. In this case, the contractor took 6 days to attend. This delay would have prolonged the resident’s distress and inconvenience.
13. When they did attend, they did not record whether they completed any repairs. Accurate records are essential for landlords to monitor contractor performance and confirm the status of repairs. The absence of this information suggests a weakness in the landlord’s oversight of its contractor’s record keeping.
14. On 25 and 26 July 2023 the resident reported that the windows would not close. She said the property was cold and raised concerns about air pollution entering. The landlord cancelled her repair requests and said it would complete the repairs under the planned works programme.
15. Although air pollution is outside the landlord’s control, it could have considered how this affected the resident. This shows a repeated pattern of the landlord failing to demonstrate how it considered both the resident’s concerns, and its duty to keep the property secure. These failures likely left the resident feeling that her concerns were not taken seriously.
16. The landlord’s Repairs policy allows it to complete repairs under a planned works programme when it is cost-effective and reasonable to do so. It will update the resident if it chooses this approach. Despite this, the landlord did not contact the resident for more than 2 months after it had made its decision. The landlord still had a duty to respond to new repair reports. It did not show how it had satisfied itself that the windows were safe and secure. This reflects a pattern of failure to act. Its delays and lack of updates likely undermined the resident’s trust in the landlord’s ability to repair the windows.
17. On 16 October 2023 the resident raised a complaint. She said the landlord had not repaired the windows, which remained draughty and had condensation. Her home was cold, heating costs were high, and she had been waiting since March 2023 for the repairs.
18. On 26 October 2023 the landlord issued it stage 1 response. It said its Surveyor inspected the windows in May 2023 and found they needed repairs. It added the repairs to the planned works programme, and the contractor would arrange an appointment with the resident. The landlord reiterated that the windows did not need replacing.
19. The landlord’s response did not go far enough in putting things right. It did not confirm when it would complete the repairs, leaving the resident uncertain. Clear timescales would have managed the resident’s expectations and reduced her uncertainty. The landlord did not explain how it would respond if further issues arose. It also failed to consider the resident’s concerns about heating costs or that she had reported the issues 7 months earlier.
20. On 29 October 2023 the resident reported condensation “dripping” from her windows and said 1 window would not close, worsening the draught. The landlord cancelled her repair request and said it would complete the repairs under the planned works programme. This was unreasonable because it did not consider the impact on the resident’s heating costs or explore any interim measures. The landlord could have provided a temporary heater or carried out a temporary repair. It could have also signposted the resident to help with her heating costs. Its lack action would have likely left the resident feeling unsupported.
21. The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 30 November 2023. She said that she been reporting window repairs since 2022. She asked the landlord to finish the repairs before winter ended and to compensate her for the impact of the delays.
22. On 5 December 2023 the landlord raised a repair to renew the living room window frame. The contractor attended on 8 January 2024, 22 working days later. This was slightly outside the 20-working day target, which was a minor shortcoming. The contractor began the repairs and said it would arrange another appointment to finish them.
23. On 26 January 2024 the landlord issued its stage 2 response. It explained that in March 2023 it raised repairs for the living room and bedroom windows because they were draughty and difficult to open and close. The contractor recommended replacing the windows, which may have been to secure the work. It had incorrectly told the resident that the repairs would be completed under the planned works programme. This was due to a miscommunication between departments.
24. To put things right, the landlord apologised and committed to repairing the windows. It gave advice on managing condensation, explaining this was “typical” with single-glazed windows. It offered £500 compensation for its poor communication and the distress and inconvenience it caused.
25. The landlord’s response was reasonable. It acknowledged its failings, committed to completing the outstanding work, and recognised the prolonged distress it had caused. Its compensation offer aligned with both its Compensation policy and our remedies guidance, which suggests £250 or more where there have been multiple failings.
26. The contractor returned on 13 February 2024 to finish the window repairs but did not complete the work. They would arrange a third appointment and noted that the windows might be damaged beyond repair. Between 15 and 22 February 2024, the resident contacted the landlord because the contractor had not contacted her. She told it that the contractors had left the living room dusty and unusable overnight, causing her inconvenience. She would arrange the window repairs herself and asked the landlord to only fix the window pull cord.
27. On 28 February 2024 the landlord closed the repair without fixing the pull cord. This was unreasonable, given it knew the windows might be beyond repair. It missed the opportunity to confirm the window condition and address the resident’s concerns about the contractor. This would have increased the resident’s frustration and made her feel that her request had been overlooked.
28. On 17 June 2024 the resident reported her bedroom window was stuck open. The contractor attended on 11 July 2024 and 25 July 2024 and repaired the pullcord so it could open and close. The resident said that the windows are still draughty, have condensation, and are difficult to open and close.
29. In summary, the landlord went someway to put things right in its stage 2 response. It apologised, acknowledged its failings, and offered compensation for its poor communication and delays. However, after its stage 2 response, it did not complete the repairs as promised. It failed to follow up when the resident said she would do the work herself and only wanted the pull cord fixed. Despite knowing the contractor’s concerns, it did not assess whether the windows were safe and secure.
30. The landlord did not treat new reports as emergencies or risk assess the windows to decide if there were any security or safety issues. This demonstrates that the landlord did not learn from earlier failings. Poor communication and delays continued, leaving the resident to chase for updates. These failures caused the resident further distress, inconvenience, and loss of trust. We have made a further order of £250 compensation in line with both the landlord’s policy and our remedies guidance.

31. The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’) sets out how and when a landlord should respond to complaints. The relevant Code in this case is the 2022 edition. Our findings are:
32. The landlord has a published Complaints policy which complies with the terms of the Code in respect of timescales.
33. On 16 October 2023 the resident logged a complaint. The landlord acknowledged it the next day and issued its stage 1 response on 26 October 2023, 7 working days later. These timescales met its policy and the Code, which require a response within 10 working days.
34. On 8 November 2023 the resident asked to escalate the complaint to stage 2. The landlord did not acknowledge this within 2 working days as required under its policy. The resident contacted us on 30 November 2023 due to landlord’s lack of communication. That day, we asked the landlord to issue a response within 20 working days. This failure created uncertainty for the resident about whether the landlord would respond.
35. Under the Code, landlords may extend complaint deadlines by 20 working days if agreed with the resident. If the landlord knew it could not respond by 2 January 2024, it should have contacted the resident to agree a new deadline. The continued lack of communication likely increased the resident’s frustration and reduce her confidence in the landlord’s ability to respond to her complaint.
36. When the resident escalated her complaint to stage 2, she raised new concerns about her bathroom and damage to her personal belongings. The landlord did not respond to these issues as required under the Code. It should have logged them as a new complaint or included them in its stage 2 investigation and response. Failing to do so caused the resident additional uncertainty about whether the landlord would address her concerns.
37. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 26 January 2024, 38 working days after we contacted it. This significantly exceeded the timescales set out in both the landlord’s policy and the Code, which requires a response within 20 working days of acknowledgment. In its response, the landlord apologised for its delay and poor communication, which were due to staff absences. It offered the resident £350 compensation to reflect its failings.
38. The landlord’s offer of £350 provides appropriate financial redress for the failings identified and is more than the amount typically awarded by the Ombudsman. However, it did not recognise that it failed to respond to the new concerns raised at stage 2. This left the resident uncertain and undermined her confidence in the landlord’s complaint handling. We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Learning

39. Delaying repairs can undermine residents’ trust and confidence in the landlord’s service, particularly when repairs remain unresolved. The landlord could take learning from our Spotlight Report on Repairs (March 2023), which highlights the importance of timely, effective repairs and robust systems to track outstanding issues.
40. The landlord could consider whether staff training is needed to improve familiarity with the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). This would help support accurate hazard assessment and prioritisation of repairs in line with health and safety standards.

Communication

41. Poor internal communication contributed to the overall delays the resident experienced. The landlord could take the opportunity to consider how departments share information to avoid similar delays.