Notting Hill Genesis (202408736)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202408736

Notting Hill Genesis (NHG)

22 May 2025

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:
   1. The landlord’s handling of repairs to the heating system and subsequent leak.
   2. The landlord’s response to damage to the resident’s possessions caused by a leak.
2. We have also investigated the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Background

3. The resident is a secured tenant with the landlord who is a housing association. The property is a 1-bedroom flat.
4. On 30 December 2023, the resident reported an issue with the heating system which left her without hot water.
5. Repairs were due to be completed on 4 January 2024, however the evidence provided by the landlord shows the repair could not be completed on this visit as more parts were needed. An engineer attended the property on 18 January 2024, but the works still could not be completed as the wrong parts were supplied. The works were completed on 7 February 2024.
6. On 19 February 2024, the resident raised a complaint with the landlord. She said she was unhappy with how long the repair had taken. She was also unhappy about the number of visits made by contractor without fixing the issue. She also said she had missed job interviews and hospital appointments because of the problem and wanted these issues looked into as part of her complaint.
7. The resident reported a boiler leak on 10 March 2024, which the landlord attended to the following day. The resident said to the landlord, this was caused by the engineer who had initially attended the previous repair. On 28 March 2024, she requested the landlord consider this as part of her complaint as this had caused damage to her belongings.
8. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 28 March 2024. It apologised for its delay in its response and noted that the resident had been without a working heating system from 30 December 2023 to 7 February 2024. The landlord offered the resident a total of £305 in compensation for loss of bathing facilities and inconvenience caused.
9. On 5 April 2024, the resident escalated her complaint to stage 2. She said she was still unhappy about the number of repair appointments needed to fix the issue and was also unhappy that the landlord did not address the leak she reported which caused damage to her possessions.
10. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 1 May 2024. It said it agreed that there had been an excessive number of visits and that the issue should have been resolved sooner. It increased the compensation to a total of £355.
11. The resident further chased with the landlord for response to the leak reported in March 2024 and the damage to her personal belongings.
12. Following the Service’s involvement, on 25 November 2024 the landlord issued a revised stage 2 response. It said it was unable to conclude that the leak was caused by the contractors but offered £100 as a gesture of goodwill. It also advised the resident to take out home contents insurance. It offered £250 compensation for “not managing the complaint in line with the complaints policy”. It, however, confirmed the compensation of £305 offered at stage 1, and as such, the landlord offered a total of £655 compensation.
13. The resident said to us she would like further compensation as the offers made by the landlord did not reflect the distress that had been caused.

Assessment and findings

The landlords handling of repairs to the heating system and subsequent leak.

14. The tenancy agreement says the landlord will keep in good repair and proper working order any installations provided by it including heating and hot water.
15. The landlord’s repairs policy says it will attend emergency repairs within 4 hours and works to make safe or temporarily repair should be completed at this visit or within 24 hours. Further repairs may then subsequently be required to complete the repair.
16. The repairs policy also classifies the types of repairs that it considers emergency repairs. These include a serious failure of heating or hot water in the property (during October to March only).
17. The resident says due to a fault with the heating system she was without hot water between the months of December to February, therefore we would expect the landlord to log this as an emergency repair.
18. The evidence provided shows that the resident first reported the fault with the heating system on 30 December 2023. The landlord raised a job on 2 January 2024 and contacted the resident the following day to apologise. It explained there had been a miscommunication regarding the engineer’s attendance on 30 December 2023. It noted that the engineer was unavailable to attend on that date.
19. The evidence provided shows that the landlord did not attend the fault within 24 hours as per its own policy above. On discovering its mistake on 2 January 2024, it again did not follow this policy. There was a total delay of 4 days where the resident was waiting on an emergency call out. This was unreasonable, especially as it was the winter months and amounts to service failure.
20. An engineer attended on 4 January 2024 to carry out repair works. The contractor noted that they had tried to restore the heating and hot water, however they could not complete the repair as a part replacement was required. This was out of the landlord’s control; however, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to consider the reported inconvenience to the resident and provide interim measures such as heaters or gym membership. We have not seen any evidence the landlord considered this or offered the resident temporary accommodation under its decant policy. This was unreasonable and left the resident without heating or bathing facilities for the period until the repair was complete.
21. On 18 January 2024, an engineer attended again, replaced the faulty part, and confirmed the repair works were complete. However, on 10 March 2024 the resident reported a leak with the boiler. The resident said the leak had occurred after the repair works and had been caused by the operative who had completed the works to the heating system. The landlord resolved this within the timeframes of its repairs policy on the following day.
22. The landlord did not dispute that there were failings in its handling of the repairs to the heating system. Where the landlord acknowledges failings, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the landlord resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances and offered appropriate redress. When considering this, the Service assesses whether the landlord’s actions were in keeping with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: Be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
23. The landlord’s repairs policy says it will pay compensation of 10% of daily rent for loss of heating (after the first 48 hours during October to March only) and/or loss of hot water.
24. During the complaints process the landlord offered £105 to cover the 10% daily rent for loss of heating and hot water from 30 December 2023 to 7 February 2024. It identified the inconvenience caused by various contractor visits, the fact it was during the winter months and overall delays experienced. It further offered £200 compensation in recognition of these factors. While the landlord increased this offer with an additional £50 at stage 2, this was not accounted in its final review offer of 25 November 2024(where it confirmed its offer was £305).
25. While the landlord acknowledged the delays and offered compensation, it failed to address why it did not consider any interim measures and as such it did not fully acknowledge the inconvenience this caused to the resident. The resident was left without any heating or hot water for the duration of 38 days during the winter and without any temporary measures to mitigate the impact on her. As such, the total compensation the landlord offered was not proportionate to the impact on the resident and the failures identified in this investigation.

The landlord’s response to damage to the resident’s possessions caused by a boiler leak.

26. The landlord’s repairs policy states that residents are responsible for insuring their own contents.
27. The landlord’s compensation policy states that it will not pay compensation where there is damage and the resident believes that it, or a contractor working on its behalf, are at fault, in these cases a liability (insurance) claim can be made where negligence will need to be evidenced.
28. The resident stated in her complaint that she believed the leak had been caused by the engineer who originally installed the boiler part. She requested to be compensated for the damaged items following this leak. While the landlord appropriately attended to the repair as stated above, it did not address the resident’s complaint about damage caused to belongings following a leak in its stage 1 or initial stage 2 complaint responses.
29. In its revised stage 2 response dated 25 November 2024, the landlord said it had failed to signpost the resident to make a claim via her home contents insurance and apologised for this. It also provided the details of its insurance team for further assistance. The landlord increased its offer of compensation from £50 to £100 in compensation as a gesture of goodwill towards the damage to personal possessions for this service failure.
30. Although the landlord is under no obligation to reimburse for damage to possessions, there was a missed opportunity for it to provide the insurance details and advice to the resident at the time. These have only been provided after the intervention of the Service, some 6 months after the stage 2 response. While this delay was unreasonable, the further offer of compensation was proportionate for the failure to follow its own process at the time. The Ombudsman therefore makes a finding of reasonable redress in relation to the landlord’s response to damage to the resident’s possessions.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

31. The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints procedure. It aims to respond within 10 working days for stage 1 complaints. It aims to respond to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days of an escalation request.
32. The resident raised a stage 1 complaint on 19 February 2024. It was not until 28 March 2024 when the landlord issued its stage 1 response. This is 18 working days over its 10-day timeframe to issue stage 1 responses.
33. Although the landlord issued its stage 1 response outside its timeframes it did not acknowledge this in its stage 1 response, and it is not evident that it kept the resident updated on delays in its response times. This is not in keeping with the Complaint Handling Code (the Code) and amounts to a service failure.
34. The resident raised a stage 2 complaint on 5 April 2024. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 7 May 2024. This is within its timeframe of 20 working days to issue stage 2 responses. However, in its response the landlord failed to address the damage to the resident’s belongings and provide appropriate advice.
35. On 25 November 2024, the landlord issued a revised stage 2 response and acknowledged the above failures. It apologised for its poor complaint handling and offered the resident £250 in compensation. This offer reflects a finding of maladministration in line with our remedies guidance. We therefore consider the landlord’s apology and offer of compensation was reasonable. It was a proportionate step to take to reflect the inconvenience and frustration caused to the resident by the landlord’s complaint handling failures.

Determination

36. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the heating system.
37. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of:
    1. The resident’s reports about damage to her possessions caused by a boiler leak.
    2. The associated complaint.

 Orders and recommendations

Orders

38. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay the resident £455 compensation (including £355 it offered during its complaints process if not paid already) for the inconvenience caused to her by its failures and delay in the heating system repair.
39. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the Ombudsman orders the landlord to provide evidence of compliance with the above order.

Recommendations

40. The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord:
    1. Pays the resident £100 compensation (if not paid already) offered in recognition of the inconvenience caused to her by its handling of her reports of damage to belongings. The finding of reasonable redress has been based on the landlord making this payment to the resident.
    2. Pays the resident £250 compensation (if not paid already) for the time and trouble caused by its complaint handling failures.