Notting Hill Genesis (202339021)

Background

1. The resident reported noise nuisance in February 2021. This was linked to a drainage issue on his balcony at his property. The resident complained to the landlord due to the time it took to repair the issue and its failure to recognise and address the impact the noise nuisance created by the balcony drainage on his mental health.
2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
   1. Repair reports concerning the balcony drainage.
   2. Associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found that:
   1. There was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the reports concerning the balcony drainage.
   2. There was reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

Reports concerning balcony drainage

4. The landlord did not contact the resident in line with its repair policy and did not complete the repair in policy timeframes. The landlord failed to understand the nature of the repair or the circumstances that led to the complaint, leading to unnecessary delays.

Complaint handling

5. The landlord did not fully comply with its complaints policy or our Complaint Handling Code (the Code).

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.

What we did not investigate

6. The resident told us he has been reporting issues with the balcony since 2021, stating he notified the landlord the noise relating to balcony repair was an ongoing nuisance. While we have seen evidence the landlord acknowledged and investigated reports in 2021, the evidence provided shows a formal complaint was not made until October 2023. In the interest of fairness, our investigation has focused on events from 6 October 2022 to 19 February 2024, the date of the final complaint response.
7. The resident said the noise has impacted his health and employment. It would be fairer, more reasonable and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused. The courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of injury and how long it will last. We’ve not investigated this further. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.

What we did investigate

8. The landlord aims to deal with non-urgent repairs within 20 working days. The resident reported balcony drainage issues on 14 February 2023. The contractor attended on 16 February 2023.  Its report to the landlord dated 16 February 2023, confirmed it was unable to undertake the repair to the balcony and that specialist work was required. There is no evidence the landlord acted on the contractor’s report or made any contact with a specialist to investigate what repairs were required. Furthermore, there is no evidence it communicated this to the resident to explain the delay in progress. This was not reasonable and was a communication failure.
9. The resident reported balcony drainage issues again on 27 March 2023.  The landlord asked the same contractor who attended in February 2023 to attend, but the contractor confirmed on 27 March 2023 it was unable to complete the repair works. The landlord’s internal communications dated 27 March 2023 confirm it was aware that contractors were unable to complete the repair. There is no evidence it communicated this to the resident. This was a communication failure.
10. There was then a gap in the timeline when there was no communication from either party. On 6 October 2023 the resident raised a complaint regarding the lack of progress on the repairs.
11. In its stage 1 response the landlord detailed the work it had undertaken to repair the drainage issues. It failed to acknowledge its delays or its failure to adhere to its repairs policy. This was not reasonable considering it took 8 months to respond to the resident’s repair reports. There’s no evidence it attempted to understand or acknowledge the resident’s concerns throughout the complaint regarding the impact the noise was having on him. This failure to understand the complaint led to unnecessary delays in its response and a lack of communication with the resident.
12. The resident escalated his complaint stated the issue had not been resolved. The landlord’s final response dated 19 February 2024, reiterated that the balcony guttering was draining in line with design. It missed a further opportunity to acknowledge any delays in its repairs timeframe or in its communication. The landlord should have apologised, offered compensation in accordance with its compensation policy and demonstrated learning from its failures.
13. In summary, we have found maladministration. The landlord failed to act in accordance with its repairs policy in completing the repairs. There is no evidence it kept the resident updated during these delays. Its complaint responses did not acknowledge these failings and did not offer an apology or compensation or demonstrate any learning. We have ordered the landlord to pay £300 compensation to the resident. This is for the distress and inconvenience caused by its delays in responding to the resident’s repair requests and its failure to communicate delays in the repair schedule.

14.  The landlord’s complaint policy at the time of the complaint complies with the definition of a complaint in the Code (April 2024). The timescales in the landlord’s complaint procedure complied with the Code.
15. The landlord’s complaint policy states it will acknowledge complaints within 2 working days. It will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. Any extensions to these timescales will be agreed with the resident. The landlord’s policy complies with our Complaint Handling Code.
16. The resident complained on 6 October 2023. There is no evidence the landlord acknowledged receipt and confirmed its understanding of the complaint. It issued its stage 1 response on 16 November 2023, 30 working days later. This was not appropriate as this was not in line with the policy. The landlord’s response did not address the points raised by the resident in his complaint. Its response was to detail work the resident was already aware had taken place before the complaint was submitted and to state that the balcony drain was working as designed. It stated no further repair work was required.
17. The resident escalated his complaint on the 28 November 2023. There is no evidence the landlord acknowledged receipt and confirmed its understanding of the escalation. It issued its final response on 19 February 2024, 57 working days later. This was not appropriate as it was not in line with its policy.
18. The landlord provided a stage 2 response on 19 February 2024, 57 working days after the request. This exceeded the timescale in its policy. We have seen evidence that the landlord informed the resident of delays to the response due to staffing issues, but we have seen no evidence that timescales were provided or discussed with the resident, in line with its policy.
19. The landlord offered £100 compensation for its delays in complaint handling which was in line with its compensation policy. This was also in line with our remedies guidance for a finding of maladministration where there was no permanent impact on the resident and the landlord has acknowledged its failings and made some attempt to put things right. As such a finding of reasonable redress is appropriate.

Learning

20. Landlords must have an effective complaint process to provide a good service to their residents. The landlord should ensure staff understand what qualifies as a complaint and to speak to the resident making the complaint at the earliest available opportunity to acknowledge and define the complaint. The landlord should make sure all relevant members of staff are aware of the complaints policy and timeframes for response.

Knowledge Management

21. The landlord maintained appropriate records that supported our investigation, which helped us understand events that had taken place.

Communication

22. The landlord’s overall communication with the resident was consistently poor, missing opportunities to understand the complaint, missing timeframes for responses or ignoring repair requests. We expect landlords to keep to communication guidelines in line with policy and as detailed in the Code.