Notting Hill Genesis (202347192)

Background

1. The resident first reported uneven flooring to the landlord in 2020. The landlord completed bedroom floor repairs in October 2023. The resident complained in November 2023 that the compensation the landlord offered for its delayed floor repairs did not reflect the distress and inconvenience she had experienced.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. Reports of uneven flooring.
   2. The resident’s complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of uneven flooring.
4. We have found reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of reports of uneven flooring

5. The landlord appropriately acknowledged failings in its handling of the resident’s reports of uneven flooring. However, it did not show it considered any potential risks posed to her health and safety, and the compensation offered did not take account of this failing.

The landlord’s complaint handling

6. The landlord acknowledged and provided appropriate redress for its minor complaint response delays.

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. The resident first reported uneven flooring in 2020, but she did not complain to the landlord until November 2023. Usually, we consider events within the 12 months before a complaint is made so that issues remain current and relevant evidence is available. However, in its complaint responses the landlord acknowledged that its failings in this matter dated back to 2020. We have therefore considered events from 2020 as part of our investigation, in line with the landlord’s approach.
8. The landlord’s tenancy agreement states it is responsible for repairing the structure of the building, including internal floors. Its repairs policy also confirms responsibility for structural repairs to floors and skirtings. It was therefore appropriate that, in its stage 1 and stage 2 complaint responses, the landlord took accountability for its failure to complete the required floor repairs. It explained that the floor repairs raised in 2020 had been incorrectly closed.
9. At the time of the resident’s complaint, the floor repairs had been outstanding for 3 years. This was an excessive period against the landlord’s policy timeframe of 20 working days for standard repairs. In its complaint responses the landlord apologised and offered the resident £950 compensation for its communication failures and the repair delays. This amount was within its ‘high impact’ range under its policy. It is also at the high end of our remedies guidance for maladministration. This demonstrates the landlord appropriately recognised the significant impact the issues had on the resident.
10. The landlord also provided the resident reasonable compensation for the cost of replacement flooring and for damage to her furniture.
11. However, the resident stated that the compensation offered did not reflect the level of distress she experienced or the landlord’s failure to address the safety hazard. On 11 April 2023, the resident had informed the landlord that, on 8 April 2023, a wardrobe had nearly fallen on her. She said she had used a wooden block to try to prevent this from happening again.
12. Although the landlord raised a repair task on 14 April 2023 in response to this report, it failed to treat the issue as an emergency repair, which would have been appropriate given the potential health and safety risk. Nor did it carry out a risk assessment to assess any potential hazard or consider whether the wooden block used to support the wardrobe was an effective safeguard.
13. The landlord’s subsequent survey on 4 July 2023 confirmed that the bedroom floor was uneven and unable to safely support heavy furniture (such as wardrobes) without supports. Again, there is no evidence the landlord considered or implemented any appropriate actions in response to the survey information.
14. The bedroom floor repairs were major works that required the resident to move into temporary accommodation. Although the landlord’s repairs policy does not specify a timeframe for completing major works, it is reasonable to expect such works to be progressed within a timely manner. The duration of major works can vary depending on factors such as contractor availability and the scope of the repairs. However, after the repair task was raised in April 2023, it took a further 6 months to complete the bedroom floor repairs. The landlord did not provide reasons for its lack of urgency in this matter, which was unreasonable.
15. Furthermore, throughout this time the landlord did not provide regular progress updates to keep the resident informed. As a result, the resident experienced a prolonged period of uncertainty as well as exposure to a potential safety hazard until the floor was repaired in November 2023. The resident’s anxiety and distress were understandable in the circumstances.
16. The resident also asked the landlord to reimburse her for travel expenses incurred while she was placed in temporary accommodation. The landlord’s decant policy states that reasonable expenses will be considered. The landlord refused the resident’s request on the grounds that it was not covered by its policies and procedures. However, it did not provide the relevant procedure to support this position. The resident told the landlord the temporary accommodation was located further from her workplace. It is therefore unclear why the landlord did not consider her request for travel costs a reasonable expense.
17. The resident was informed by the landlord on 2 November 2023 that the hall floor would be replaced. However, in its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord advised that the floor would not be replaced. While it was reasonable for the landlord to decide against replacement, as no health and safety issue had been identified, its poor communication raised the resident’s expectations and likely contributed to her frustration. It is recognised that, in its stage 2 response, the landlord acknowledged its communication failings and awarded appropriate compensation.
18. Overall, although the landlord has made efforts to offer redress to the resident, its offer was not proportionate to reflect its failure to promptly respond to the potential safety hazard and the distress the resident experienced as a result. We have therefore found maladministration and have ordered the landlord to pay further compensation in line with our remedies guidance for failings that had a significant impact on the resident.

19. At the time of the resident’s complaint the landlord had a 2-stage complaints process. Its policy timescales were in line with the requirements of our Complaint Handling Code.
20. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint of 1 November 2023 that same day, within its 5-working-day target timeframe. It then issued its stage 1 complaint response on 24November 2023, 2 days outside its overall target of 15 working days (including the 5-working-day timescale to acknowledge the complaint). This delay was minimal, and the landlord apologised and compensated the resident for its delay. These were appropriate steps for this minor service failure.
21. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request within its 5-working-day target timescale on 15 December 2023. It then provided its stage 2 complaint response 11 days outside its target timeframe of 20 working days. It is acknowledged, however, that within this period the landlord liaised directly with the resident to discuss her complaint in line with its complaints policy. Therefore, there is no evidence that the stage 2 complaint response delay caused any significant detriment to the resident.
22. The landlord’s complaint responses were detailed and took accountability for its delays and errors. As such, the quality of the responses was appropriate. As there is no evidence to suggest that the resident was negatively impacted by some minor omissions, we have found the landlord provided reasonable redress in its complaint handling overall.

Learning

23. In the stage 2 complaint response the landlord said it had raised its repair delays and communication failings with the relevant internal departments. This demonstrates a commitment to review its failings to help prevent future occurrences.

Knowledge and information management (record keeping)

24. Overall, the landlord’s records were sufficient to enable a thorough assessment of the complaint.

Communication

25. Poor communication was a key aspect of the resident’s complaint. The landlord acknowledged and compensated the resident for its communication failings.