Notting Hill Genesis (202412624)
|
Decision |
|
|
Case ID |
202412624 |
|
Decision type |
Investigation |
|
Landlord |
Notting Hill Genesis |
|
Landlord type |
Housing Association |
|
Occupancy |
Assured Tenancy |
|
Date |
15 April 2026 |
Background
- The resident complained to the landlord about regular disruptions to the water supply to his flat. These were caused by maintenance works in the communal boiler room for the building. The landlord said that prior notice was always given and no service failure had taken place.
What the complaint is about
- The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
- Concerns about disruption to his water supply.
- The associated complaint.
Our decision (determination)
- There was service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s concerns about disruption to his water supply.
- There was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s associated complaint.
We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.
Summary of reasons
The resident’s reports of disruption to his water supply.
- The landlord failed to adequately manage the resident’s expectations about the ongoing works.
The associated complaint
- The landlord failed to escalate the resident’s complaint, was late replying at both stages and applied restrictions too widely on his ability to complain.
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.
|
Order |
What the landlord must do |
Due date |
|
1 |
Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £400 made up as follows:
|
No later than 13 May 2026 |
|
2 |
Disruptions to supply The landlord to:
|
13 May 2026 |
|
3 |
Complaint Handling The landlord to review its restrictions (if they are still in place) and to explain to us how it intends to ensure they are fairly and appropriately used. |
13 May 2026 |
Our investigation
The complaint procedure
|
Date |
What happened |
|
03/11/2023 |
The resident complained to the landlord about disruptions to his water supply. He said this was happening every 6 weeks or so and had a significant impact upon him because he has mobility and health issues. |
|
21/11/2023 |
The landlord gave its stage 1 response. It said that prior notice of works was given and the disruptions were short lived. It said it was meeting with the managing agent for the building to discuss whether it could minimise further disruption for the resident. It was happy to meet with the resident as well to discuss the situation. |
|
23/11/2023 |
The resident asked to escalate his complaint. He wanted to know how the landlord expected him to cope without alternative arrangements for his care when the water was off. |
|
16/12/2023 |
The landlord refused to escalate the complaint. It said it had sent the resident an action plan to manage his communications on this and other issues as it considered the frequency of his contacts to be excessive. It set out in the plan that complaints would not be escalated where repairs were resolved and no service failing had been identified. It repeated that notice was given by the managing agent ahead of interruptions to supply. It noted that the supply to the resident’s property had not been affected on the most recent occasion in any event. |
|
14/06/2024 |
The landlord refused to accept a further complaint from the resident when more disruptions had taken place. It said this was because a “first request for service” needed to be made first. |
|
23/09/2024 |
We asked the landlord to escalate the complaint and provide a final response. |
|
30/09/2024 |
The landlord sent its stage 2 reply. It repeated that notice was always given of any disruption to the service and that supply had always been reinstated the same day. It noted that occasionally a fault might arise that could not be foreseen but even then, the supply was returned to working order within a short time. The landlord denied any service failings. However, it recognised that the complaint had been made before the action plan was put into place and now accepted that it should have proceeded to stage 2 after all. It offered compensation to the resident of £100 in recognition of the impact this had upon him. |
|
Referral to the Ombudsman |
The resident was not happy with this response and referred his complaint to us. By way of outcome, he wants the landlord to offer alternative accommodation on the days the water supply is interrupted. |
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.
|
Complaint |
The resident’s reports of disruption to his water supply. |
|
Finding |
Service failure |
- The resident has limited mobility and significant health issues, as does his partner. He has told us he has a regular carer who helps him shower and this cannot take place when the water is off. The visits therefore need to be rearranged. The resident also takes heart medication which requires him to have access to a toilet in the time immediately after taking it. Whilst the toilet is still available during cuts in supply, the resident considers it unhygienic not to flush it. He says the water interruptions were (and are) more impactful on him due to his vulnerabilities.
- The landlord’s recordsshow no vulnerabilities listed for the resident. However, the landlord has adapted this property to meet the resident’sneeds,so it is aware of his vulnerable status overall. There is no evidence, however, that it had prior knowledge of the specific reasons why theresident considered the interruptions were more impactful and as set out above.
- According to the evidence, there were 6 interruptions to the water supply at the property in the year leading up to the resident’s complaint (November 2022 to November 2023). Prior notification was sent to the resident each time saying remedial works were the reason for the disruption. The records do not show the exact length of each disruption.
- When the resident complained about the frequency, the landlord replied by addressing the question of prior notice. This did not explain why the works were ongoing.
- The disruptions then continued in 2024, happening monthly from February to July and again in September. It is not possible to confirm from the records supplied whether the works were then complete, or whether the disruptions have continued.
- All properties require maintenance and repair from time to time. This is so irrespective of whether the occupant is an owner or a tenant. Some disruption occurs at such times and needs to be accommodated. However, the number and frequency of the interruptions to the supply here appears higher than one might typically expect to see.
- Given the focus of the resident’s complaint on the number of times the interruptions were occurring, the landlord might reasonably have addressed the reason why the works were so regular and ongoing. The evidence does not show any attempt on its behalf to do so ormanage the resident’s expectations in other ways. Theprior notices of disruption did not explain why that disruption was necessary on a continuing basis and how many times it might be necessary moving forward.
- By way of remedy the resident told us he wants the landlord to offer alternative accommodation during outages, such as the provision of a room in a local hotel. While he did raise the possibility of alternative solutions in his complaint to the landlord, he did not specifically make this request.
- In the landlord’s stage 2 response it said it had a process in place to provide sufficient water to each flat in the building during a significant delay. It is therefore aware of the potential impact on tenants in general, but there is no evidence of it considering whether it could potentially tailor its support to this resident’s more specific needs. This is important, because it is harder for him to make the same changes to his routine that other residents can make for themselves during stoppages – for example by going out for the day to use other facilities.
- Overall, the landlord failed to manage the resident’s expectations on how long the water interruptions were expected to continue or acknowledge their unusual frequency. The resident told the landlord how the interruptions were impacting on him and his family (albeit not in the same detail he gave us), but there is no evidence of it discussing with him potential ways to provide support more appropriate to his situation. This meant the resident was left in situations which could potentially have been avoided or at least partially mitigated.
- An order for compensation has been made which is based on our remedies and compensation guidance and which reflects failings of the scale and nature determined in this case.
|
Complaint |
Complaint handling |
|
Finding |
Maladministration |
- The landlord’s definition of a complaint and its timescales align with the Complaint Handling Code (“the Code”).
- The landlord’s stage 1 response was sent 2 working days late. The landlord then refused to escalate the complaint to stage 2. As set out above, this was because of its plan to limit its contacts with the resident and its stance on when a complaint would be escalated.
- The Code says that a landlord must not refuse to accept or escalate a complaint unless it has valid reasons to do so. Whether excessive contact was a valid reason has not been considered here. That is because the landlord has since accepted that the plan was put in place after this complaint and it was not reasonable to apply it retrospectively. It was reasonable that it identified and accepted this point. However, as a result, the stage 2 response was delayed by over 7 months, and we had to intervene to prompt that response. This was unreasonable and represented a failing in the service offered.
- Further, the landlord then refused to log any further complaint when the disruptions continued, and it had refused to escalate the first one. The landlord said that the resident should make a first request for service instead.
- The landlord’s policy states that complaints are excluded when they are actually first requests for service. That is in line with the Code. However, these were not service requests. This is because the landlord was already aware that the stoppage was going to happen. The resident was not advising it of something new, he was complaining about the frequency of the interruptions. The landlord’s application of its policy was unreasonable.
- The landlord acknowledged it should have escalated the complaint because the restrictions on the resident were not in place at the time. However, it did not identify that the restriction itself was not appropriate for complaints of the type he had asked to escalate. Because of that it did not resolve the complaint. This was a significant failing which caused inconvenience and frustration to the resident over a lengthy period of time.
- We have made orders in line with both our remedies and our compensation guidance, to reflect the scale and nature of the failings.
Learning
- The landlord should consider the Attitudes, Respect and Rights spotlight report for more effective service delivery for vulnerable tenants.
Knowledge information management (record keeping)
- The landlord should ensure it keeps accurate records of any vulnerabilities reported to it or that it becomes aware of during service delivery.
Communication
- The landlord’s overall communication was broadlyreasonable in terms of content and tone.