Notting Hill Genesis (202447873)

Background

1. The resident lives in the property which is a basement flat. He lives with his partner and 3 children. Both the resident and his partner raised issues with the landlord. For the purposes of the report, we will refer to both as ‘the resident’. The resident complained about a number of issues outside of his property and the concerns for his family’s health and safety. This includes works related to the doorbell, entry door, stairs leading to the flat, pests, and cracks in the wall and ground. He also complained about communication from staff. As well as the ongoing abuse received from his neighbour. He requested a permanent move from the landlord.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
   1. Reports of multiple repair issues outside of the property.
   2. Reports of ASB.
   3. Reports of pests.
   4. Concerns about staff conduct.
   5. Complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found reasonable redress in the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
   1. Reports of multiple repair issues outside of the property.
   2. Concerns about staff conduct.
   3. Complaint.
4. We found service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
   1. Reports of ASB.
   2. Reports of pests.

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

Summary of reasons

Reports of multiple repair issues outside of the property 

5. There were failings in the landlord’s response to the multiple repair issues outside of the property. The landlord acknowledged its failures in its complaint responses, it apologised, took the appropriate action in line with its obligations, and offered a reasonable amount of redress to put things right.

Reports of ASB

6. We acknowledge the difficulties faced by the landlord in progressing the action against the neighbour. The landlord carried out some actions to mitigate the impact on the resident such as erecting the fence and applying for a management transfer. However, the landlord failed to evidence how it fully considered the impact to the household and to offer support, in line with its ASB policy.

Reports of pests

7. The landlord recognised the delays in carrying out the appropriate action and the likely impact caused to the resident. It offered compensation which was proportionate to those failings. While its action taken to address the pigeons and clear the garden were reasonable. The time taken to clear the space beneath the steps was not appropriate.

Concerns about staff conduct

8. The landlord recognised its failures in relation to its staff conduct and the impact caused to the resident. It took proportionate steps to put things right by apologising, updating its incident records, offering reasonable compensation, and confirming who the temporary housing officer was at the time.

The complaint

9. The landlord acknowledged its failures in response to the complaint. In line with its policy at the time, the current housing officer should not have responded at stage 1. However, we have not identified any detriment or overall impact caused. The compensation offer was appropriate and was enough to satisfactorily resolve the failures related to the handling of the complaint.

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.

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.

10. The landlord’s repairs policy says it carries out emergency repairs in 24 hours. It says it will respond to repairs which do not require an urgent response in 20 working days.
11. Where a landlord admits failings, our role is to assess whether the resolution offered by the landlord put things right and remedied the complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. We also considers whether the landlord acted in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes.

Doorbell

12. In his formal complaint the resident explained his property had its own private street level entrance. This was the first point of access to the property and he said it did not have a doorbell. He said he had consistently raised concerns about safety and missing essential post. He asked the landlord to install a video doorbell with a telecom feature. He said this would allow him to open the door without having to leave his children unattended inside.
13. In its complaint responses, the landlord said it could not see any records raised for it to install a doorbell. Although, it did acknowledge it should have fitted the doorbell prior to the resident moving in in July 2022. It said it fitted the doorbell on 5 January 2024 and apologised for the time taken. It offered £250 in compensation.
14. The landlord’s response was reasonable. It fairly acknowledged it did not fit the doorbell when the property was void. It recognised the impact the time taken to do so would have had on the resident. The compensation amount offered was in line with our remedies guidance for maladministration and where the failing adversely affected the resident.
15. The resident said a previous housing officer had confirmed he could have a video intercom system. We have not seen evidence of that agreement within the records provided. However, the landlord explained it could not agree to the request for a video intercom system as that would be an improvement, rather than a repair. It said if the resident wished to install his own intercom system, he could explore that option in line with its improvement policy.
16. We found the landlord reasonably explained why it was not its responsibility to fit the intercom system and outlined the steps the resident could take if he wanted to install it himself. The resident informed us that his doorbell stopped working shortly after the landlord installed it. We cannot see the resident raised this during the timeframe of the complaint and therefore we would not identify this as a failing by the landlord at the time. If this remains an issue for the resident, we advise he raise a repair with the landlord.

Entry door

17. The resident’s property has its own street level entrance which is a lockable door/gate which then leads down steps to the front door of the flat. For the purposes of this report, we will refer to it as the entry door.
18. The resident said the door was not fit for purpose as it lacked sturdiness which compromised the household’s security. He referred to 2 incidents related to the door. One was on 13 October 2023 where due to the wind, the door slammed into his 3-year old son which resulting in him hitting his head on the edge of the wall. The incident caused a dent on his head and bruising. He referred to another incident on 22 March 2023 where the door pushed onto his younger son’s pram, this resulted in the pram falling down the steps with his son in it. His son obtained significant injuries. He asked the landlord to upgrade the door and reposition it for enhanced safety and privacy.
19. The landlord’s records show it carried out repairs to the door and frame on 14 April 2023. It is unclear what repair the landlord completed at the time. There are no further reports recorded by the resident prior to his formal complaint. The landlord inspected the door on 13 December 2023 and raised repairs to ease and adjust the door, add a mailbox, and add a latch to the door.
20. In its stage 2 response the landlord said the door did not need to be replaced as it was in reasonable condition. It said the doors position in relation to the steps did not breach any building standard or pose health and safety risks. It acknowledged the resident wanted a second opinion but it said it was satisfied with its surveyor’s finding. It said the resident could appoint his own surveyor and it would be happy to review the findings or he could seek to carry out the works via its improvements process.
21. The landlord’s response was reasonable. It was appropriate for it to rely on the opinion of its qualified staff if they determined the door was not in need of full replacement and to carry out the identified repairs in the first instance. It showed fairness in saying it would consider any survey conducted by the resident’s own surveyor or application to carry out the works himself. The landlord recognised it should not have taken the resident raising the repairs as a complaint to have them completed. It also did not complete the repairs in line with the timescales set out in its repairs policy, however, it awarded £250 for the delays. This was reasonable and again in line with our remedies guidance for a failure which adversely affected the resident.

Stairs

22. The resident also referred to the stairs leading to his property being hazardous and unsafe. He said the metal stairs posed a risk, especially when slippery due to wet weather conditions and fallen leaves. He said his children had experienced multiple incidents of slipping down the stairs and getting their legs caught in the gaps. This was in addition to the distressing incident he referred to when his son’s pram fell down the stairs.
23. In its inspection on 13 December 2023. The landlord confirmed the stairs function as they should in line with building regulations. It confirmed they had a grip and a handrail. It said while it did not identify any repairs needed for the stairs, it had requested the management transfer due to the unsuitability with young children and pram. It said it had requested a clearance and clean of the steps and basement area. It also raised a repair to put sensor lights over the side of the steps. It said the resident could apply to undertake any further changes to the steps via its improvement policy.
24. The landlord’s response was again reasonable. It showed consideration to the hazards reported by inspecting the steps in line with the timescales outlined within its repairs policy. It then outlined its position on the steps in line with its responsibilities as the landlord.
25. We acknowledge the incidents experienced by the resident and how distressing they must have been at the time. However, the landlord showed empathy with the resident’s personal circumstances by progressing a management transfer, cleaning the steps, and putting sensor lights on them. It also explained what process the resident would need to follow for an insurance claim related to the fall. This was appropriate given the dispute regarding liability for the fall and we understand there is an ongoing claim in progress. We will consider the landlord’s response to the reports of the fall at the time in the investigation of staff conduct.

Cracks in the wall and ground

26. In his formal complaint the resident said there were cracks in his front wall and on the ground outside of his home presenting a significant hazard. He said it made the area unsafe for himself, his family and members of the public. He said the damage was caused from an overgrown tree and its roots were pushing up through the ground in the front of his home. He wanted the landlord to address the issue to ensure the safety and stability of his home.
27. In its stage 1 response the landlord said it had raised a request in August 2023 in relation to the damage caused by the tree. It said it had sent a further request chasing the repair. The landlord said following the survey in December 2023, the surveyor did not note any structural concerns.
28. In its stage 2 response it said the surveyor noted superficial cracks elsewhere on the building and in the external render. It confirmed the surveyor had made a referral to its planned investment team to consider the works as part of a future cyclical program. It said a tree surgeon had now cut back the lower growth of the tree.
29. The landlord’s response was reasonable. However, it is unclear what its position is regarding the pavement in front of the property. It is unclear whether the action taken by the landlord would have helped to resolve that issue. It is likely the responsibility for the pavement would fall under the local council but the landlord may be responsible for the tree. We recommend the landlord write to the resident to confirm its position on the issue and what steps it can take, if any, to address it.

Summary

30. To conclude, there were clear failures by the landlord in its handling of the multiple repair issues. These failures likely caused the resident significant time, trouble, distress and inconvenience. We found the landlord appropriately recognised its failings and took reasonable steps to put things right before the start of our investigation. The overall compensation offer of £500 was proportionate and it was in line with our own remedies guidance for circumstances which amount to maladministration.
31. We acknowledge the resident disputed some of the findings made by the landlord following the inspection. The landlord’s response was fair, it outlined where and why it could not complete the resident’s requests. It also provided alternative options the resident could take to reach his required resolution. The landlord’s acceptance of the management transfer showed it considered the resident’s individual circumstances and the general suitability of the property. This was a proportionate step to reaching a longer term solution for the resident. We therefore found reasonable redress.

32. The landlord’s ASB policy states that in receiving a report of ASB it will contact the customer within 1 working day and offer to visit them within 5 working days. It said its initial response is to investigate and monitor any risks. It said it empathises with the detrimental impact of persistent ASB and this is reflected in its management of risk and communication with the resident. It says it would complete a risk assessment and develop an action plan. It says it will also provide information on agencies who might be able to offer additional support.
33. In his formal complaint the resident said his neighbour was consistently hostile and making Islamophobic comments towards his family. He said it installed a sense of fear and discomfort, causing them to restrict their movements, and not wanting to leave their home. He said the unwelcoming and unsafe environment had taken a toll on their mental health and wellbeing.
34. He referred to a recent incident on 29 November 2023 where the neighbour was erratic, verbally abused his partner, and intimidated her. He said they also broke the wood they had placed between the properties to prevent the neighbour from throwing rubbish onto their property. He said the impact on his partner’s mental health had reached an alarming level. He confirmed he reported the incident to the police. The resident provided videos of the neighbour to the landlord on 11 and 12 December 2023.
35. We understand the neighbour’s behaviour was a longstanding issue for the landlord prior to the resident moving in. In investigating this complaint, we find it reasonable to consider the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports within the 12 months prior to the formal complaint on 4 December 2023.
36. Within the 12 months prior to the resident’s formal complaint, we have not seen evidence of the resident raising issues regarding his neighbour. It is unclear whether this was due to a lack of reports from the resident or a lack of documenting the reports from the landlord. In its formal complaint the landlord referred to providing the resident with diary sheets on 27 November 2023. There are no records related to this or the reason why it suggested it at the time. This suggests there was a record keeping failing by the landlord, which was not appropriate.
37. Following the reports received in the formal complaint, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to contact the resident and arrange a visit as per its policy. There is no evidence of it doing so. The resident sent videos to the landlord of verbal abuse from the neighbour on 11 and 12 December 2023, we have not seen evidence of the landlord responding to the videos or considering what action it would take in relation to them.
38. On 22 December 2023, the landlord contacted the police to request information related to the reports of ongoing racial and verbal harassment. It said it was taking tenancy enforcement and legal action against the neighbour. The police responded on 29 December 2023 to confirm the reports it had received in relation to racially/religious aggressive harassment. They said the investigations were ongoing.
39. It was appropriate for the landlord to request further information for the police to help aid its own investigations and legal proceedings. Given the information obtained so far, it would have also been reasonable for the landlord to have considered any additional support for the resident while the situation was ongoing. It was positive the landlord was taking legal action but it still had a responsibility to manage the situation knowing the neighbour was continuing to abuse the family. A risk assessment would have helped the landlord consider any potential risks for the household in continuing to live with ongoing ASB.
40. In its complaint responses the landlord confirmed it was awaiting a hearing date, it said it appreciated the resident’s frustration with the length of time the legal action was taking and apologised for that. It said it could not disclose more information due to general data protection regulations (GDPR). It encouraged the resident to keep reporting further incidents to it and the police. It said in February 2024 it arranged to erect 19 metres of wooden fencing between the 2 properties. It said this was to provide additional privacy and security. It confirmed it had also approved the resident’s management transfer in February 2024.
41. It is understandable the landlord could not share all the action it had taken in relation to the neighbour, this would be in line with GDPR. The landlord has provided information to us which shows the complexities related to the neighbour and the legal challenges which contributed to the delays. However, an action plan along with regular updates to the resident on the information it could share would have helped to manage his expectations. This, alongside the risk assessment could have reassured the resident it was taking his reports seriously.
42. To conclude, we found service failure in light of the likely impact caused to the resident in not fully applying its policy up to the point of the stage 2 response. It is evident the landlord took steps to address the neighbour’s behaviour by pursuing a management transfer and eviction of the neighbour. The delays associated with that were somewhat out of its control. The erection of the fence also went some way to mitigating the impact caused to the resident. However, it failed to evidence it followed its ASB policy regarding a risk assessment or an action plan. This would not have reassured the resident it was taking all the appropriate action while the situation was ongoing.
43. The landlord must pay the resident compensation in recognition of the likely impact of its failures. As the neighbour was recently evicted from their property, we have not made any further orders in relation to the ASB.

44. The landlord’s pest policy says it deals with all pest issues in communal areas. It says the local officer should first investigate reports of pests in the block to determine what action is required. It says if required, a quote should be obtained for pest control to attend to carry out a treatment programme.
45. On 6 December 2022, the landlord repair records show that a contractor identified additional works required at the resident’s property. The notes stated “Cleaning under the stairs access through manhole cover is required. A lot of debris, leaves and general rubbish have accumulated.”. We have not seen evidence of the landlord raising the works or taking any further action.
46. In his formal complaint the resident said there was a pest issue preventing the family from using the outdoor space. He said his housing officer had assured him it would install deterrent spikes to stop the pigeons but it had not been implemented. He said there were gaps and space beneath the steps which head become a shelter for foxes. He provided a picture and his concerns about the risks posed to his family. He said neighbouring residents had disposed of non-natural debris in his garden which was likely to attract mice and rats. The resident asked the landlord to carry out an inspection and implement pest control measures. He also asked it to educate neighbouring properties regarding responsible waste disposal.
47. Following its inspection in December 2023, the landlord agreed to install pigeon spiking. It said the work would be significant as it required scaffolding and it had sought a number of quotes. It agreed a quote in April 2024 and the works carried out on 17 May 2024.
48. The landlord said its pest contractor had inspected the void space beneath the entrance steps. It said they found bags of old set cement as well as other rubbish. It said it initially scheduled the work to remove it on 20 May 2024 but it was postponed due to the rain. It said its contractor would reschedule the works when there was dry weather forecast. It said once it had removed the debris, its pest contractor would carry out a jet wash and thorough clean of the space. It advised they did not find any evidence of animals living or nesting in the area. The landlord also arranged for a one-off clearance of weeds and litter from the communal front garden. It acknowledged the delay in carrying out the works and offered £250 compensation.
49. The landlord’s actions were reasonable. It inspected the area in line with its policy and it was reasonable that it needed to obtain quotes for the work required. It acknowledged the delay in carrying out the works and the offer of £250 was in line with our remedies guidance for maladministration. Given the earlier failings in addressing the issues, it was reasonable for the landlord to arrange a one-off clearance of the communal front garden.
50. The resident informed us that the landlord did not clear the space underneath the steps until a year later and after chasing the works. This was not appropriate or in line with the timescales set out in its repairs policy. The resident was concerned about the rubbish attracting vermin, the smell, and was not able to reach the space to clear it himself. Therefore, the delay in clearing the space likely caused him further distress and inconvenience.
51. While we are satisfied that at the time of the stage 2 response the landlord carried out the appropriate steps to address the resident’s reports of pests. The resident made a commitment in its stage 2 response to clear the rubbish and clean the space under the steps. The time it took to do so was not appropriate or in line with the timescales set out in its repairs policy. We have therefore found service failure.

52. The landlord’s health and safety policy says that employees have a duty to report hazards and accidents including near misses. As well, as assisting in the investigation of accidents and the implementation of measures to prevent a recurrence.
53. In his formal complaint the resident raised concerns and frustration with the lack of communication and unfulfilled commitments from his housing officers. He said he reported several concerns and requested assistance, with very little communication or resolution. He said officers arranged multiple appointments and then would not attend, follow up, or give any prior notice. He said it inconvenienced him and he had cancelled work to be available. He said there was no apology and attempt to reschedule, which he found unprofessional and disrespectful. He attached screenshots of conversations with his housing officers.
54. In its stage 2 response the landlord agreed there were communication failures. It said on more than 1 occasion a housing officer had arranged a home visit and then not attended or cancelled last minute. It said that fell short of what he should expect and apologised. It offered a £500 in compensation for the impact caused to the resident. It provided the details for a new temporary housing officer.
55. The landlord referred to the accident involving the resident’s son in March 2023. It said it was sorry to hear about the accident. It acknowledged it did not log the incident under its incident reporting system at the time when the resident first notified his housing officer. It confirmed it had now formally recorded the incident on its health and safety system. It offered £100 in recognition of its failure to report the accident in a timely manner.
56. The landlord’s response was reasonable. The landlord did not dispute the allegations. It said some of the reasons for the non-attendance were due to staff sickness but it accepted the failures and impact on the resident. Its lack of response to the resident’s report of his son’s fall appeared dismissive and likely caused the resident further distress and inconvenience in what would have been a challenging time. It was therefore appropriate for the landlord to apologise and award compensation. The total offer of £600 for its lack of communication, commitment, and attendance showed the landlord had taken the concerns seriously and recognised the impact caused to the resident.

57. The landlord was delayed in providing its complaint response and both stage 1 and 2. Its stage 1 was provided after 26 working days. It provided its stage 2 response 82 working days after the escalation. In its stage 2 response, it said there were significant failings in its handling of the complaint and the length of time taken to respond was breach of its own policy. It apologised for any distress and inconvenience caused and awarded £500 for its complaints handling failures.
58. The resident’s housing officer provided the stage 1 response. This was in line with its complaints procedure at the time. Although, as part of the resident’s complaint was about the housing officer, then as per its policy, a local manager should have investigated the complaint instead. By not doing so, this puts into question the fairness of the investigation and response provided. However, the stage 1 response was upheld, failings were identified and redress was offered. A different staff member then investigated the stage 2 response. Therefore, although there was a failing, we cannot determine that the failing caused any detriment to the resident or affected the overall outcome of the complaint.
59. The landlord has since updated its complaint policy which is in line with our Complaint Handling Code. The overall offer of redress by the landlord for its complaint handling was proportionate and in line with our own remedies guidance for circumstances of maladministration. As such, the landlord did enough to put right the failings identified and we find reasonable redress.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

60. The landlord’s record keeping in general was poor. The resident referred to times he had raised repair issues in the 12 months prior to the complaint and there are very little records to reflect those times. This is the same for the records related to ASB from the neighbour.
61. Accurate and complete records can help a landlord review its handling of an ASB case through its complaint procedure, and to provide evidence during other processes including Ombudsman investigations and legal proceedings. The absence of full records, and therefore evidence, presents a significant risk that such processes cannot be fully utilised, and consequently residents are disadvantaged. In the absence of detailed file notes from the landlord, we were unable to confirm whether the landlord reasonably investigated the reports and took proportionate action.

Communication

62. Since the stage 2 response, the resident said there had been a number of other housing officers. He said the communication was still poor as he often did not know who the housing officer was. While the landlord reasonably addressed this in its stage 2 response, it is disappointing to hear the issue is ongoing. The landlord should reflect on its communication to the resident regarding his housing officers. We acknowledge staff changes can sometimes be out of the landlord’s control but the landlord should ensure it is promptly communicating these changes to the resident.