Notting Hill Genesis (202344937)

Background

1. The resident reported an issue with their heating system on 25 January 2024. In February 2024 they complained to the landlord as the problem remained unresolved. The repairs are now completed but the resident is dissatisfied with the landlord’s compensation offer.

What the complaint is about

2. The resident’s complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. Heating system repairs.
   2. The associated complaint, including the resident’s request for a direct compensation payment.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found that:
   1. There was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of heating system repairs.
   2. There was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

Heating system repairs

4. There were avoidable delays in completing the repairs. However, the landlord apologised and made an offer of compensation which appropriately recognised the impact of its failings.

Complaint handling

5. The landlord acknowledged some shortcomings in its complaint handling, but did not consider its delays in issuing accurate complaint responses. It also failed to fully address the resident’s queries about direct payment.

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.

6. Throughout the period in this investigation, the resident raised concerns about the impact of outstanding repairs on their family’s health. We are not medical experts so cannot assess whether something caused an impact to health. The resident could pursue such issues through the landlord’s liability insurance or the courts. We have considered the impact of any failings by the landlord, including any distress and inconvenience caused.
7. The resident’s tenancy agreement confirms the landlord is responsible for the repairs.
8. The landlord’s repairs policy states a serious failure of heating or hot water between October and March is an emergency repair. Emergency repairs should be attended within 4 hours with temporary or make–safe works completed within 24 hours. Further works may then be needed to complete the repair. Non-emergency repairs should be completed within 20 working days.
9. On 25 January 2024 the resident reported their heating was constantly on at 30 degrees upstairs and not working downstairs. The contractor attended on the same day, but did not resolve the issue. They identified a seized valve and said a builder would need to remove boxing in the kitchen before heating works could continue. The landlord did not effectively coordinate these works after this visit.
10. On 1 February 2024 the resident requested immediate action and expressed concerns the issue was causing them and their young children health problems. The landlord did not take any action or make any further enquiries about the family’s needs.
11. On 9 February 2024, the resident contacted the landlord again and said a contractor had removed a box on top of the boiler, but the issue remained unresolved.
12. A further appointment on 16 February 2024 did not resolve the issue due to the ordering of an incorrect part and failure to schedule a drain down. The landlord again missed the opportunity to effectively coordinate repairs.
13. Following a third visit, the resident reported the heating system was switched off and when turned back on they had no hot water. On 21 February 2024, the landlord contacted the resident apologising for the delays and said it understood the issue was resolved. This was not the case and shows shortcomings in the landlord’s record keeping.
14. On 22 February 2024 the resident reported ongoing problems. The landlord replied on 5 March 2024 stating no loss of service had been recorded. This was inaccurate and the landlord should have undertaken further investigation.
15. On 12 March 2024 the resident told the landlord that engineers had attended, but not fixed the problem. They had heard nothing further from the contractor. The landlord said it had asked its contractor to fix the issues by 15 March 2024. This did not happen.
16. On 18 March 2024 the resident reported further missed and ineffective appointments. The landlord did not proactively check whether the repair had been completed or offer other solutions, such as temporary heaters.
17. On 16 April 2024, the landlord apologised for delays, distress and inconvenience. It said the heating system was functioning as of 20 March 2024. This was again incorrect.
18. The records do not clearly show the date the heating system was fully repaired. The available evidence suggests completion around 5 April 2024, which was 50 working days after it was reported and significantly outside policy timescales. The resident and their children experienced significant distress, inconvenience and discomfort as a result of these delays.
19. The question for us is whether the landlord has provided a sufficient remedy to recognise the impact of its failings and put things right. We will not make a finding of maladministration where the landlord has acknowledged its shortcomings and taken reasonable steps to resolve them.
20. We consider the landlord’s offer of £756.32 to be reasonable and proportionate to its failures in handling the heating system repairs. This amount falls within the compensation ranges set out in both our guidance and the landlord’s guidance. The landlord awarded £250 for distress and inconvenience and another £50 goodwill gesture. It also made appropriate awards for additional utility costs, loss of heating and missed appointments. We have therefore made a finding (determination) of reasonable redress. As compensation has not yet been issued, this determination of reasonable redress is made on the understanding that the compensation is paid to the resident.
21. The landlord intended to credit the compensation to the resident’s rent account. The resident did not accept this. We have recommended the landlord pay compensation directly to the resident. It is our position that compensation paid after our investigation should not be offset against arrears.

22. At the time the resident complained, the landlord’s complaints policy said it would acknowledge a stage 1 complaint within 2 working days and issue a stage 1 response in 10 working days. Following complaint escalation, it would acknowledge the request within 2 working days and issue a stage 2 response within 20 working days.
23. The landlord logged the complaint as made on 9 February 2024 although the resident made it on 1 February 2024. It did not explain the discrepancy in dates.
24. The landlord stated it issued a response on 21 February 2024, followed by a further stage 1 response on 8 March 2024. It then reissued this response on 15 March 2024, as it had previously failed to outline its complaints process. This sequence of responses may have caused confusion for the resident and demonstrates that the complaint was not handled in line with expected standards. The last stage 1 response was also issued 22 working days outside the landlord’s policy timescales.
25. The landlord acknowledged its error in not outlining its complaints process and offered the resident £50 compensation. However, it did not acknowledge its failure to log the initial complaint or its delays in issuing a correct response.
26. Following escalation, the landlord issued its stage 2 response on 16 April 2024. It advised that, under its policy, the compensation would be applied to the resident’s rent account due to arrears.
27. On 25 April 2024 the resident challenged the landlord’s calculation of compensation and its decision to credit their rent account. They said its policy allowed it to consider paying compensation directly to them.
28. The landlord reiterated its policy was for compensation to be credited to a rent account first. It added compensation for missed appointments and reissued its stage 2 response on 26 April 2024. The landlord should have included missed appointments in its first stage 2 response. This meant there was a 7 working day delay in issuing its final response.
29. The landlord’s compensation policy states that where a resident has arrears, compensation will be paid to their rent account. However, the policy does also allow direct payment to residents in arrears where its failings have contributed to financial hardship.
30. The resident repeatedly told the landlord the situation had caused them financial strain. The landlord also admitted failings in its handling of the heating system repairs. It would have been reasonable for it to consider the resident’s request for direct payment, or at least provide a full explanation of why it decided not to.
31. The landlord correctly told the resident it could not consider medical expenses or loss of earnings under its complaints process. We are also unable to determine liability or award damages and such claims should be made through an insurer or the courts. The landlord could have provided the resident with its insurance details in the event they wished to pursue a claim.
32. We consider the delays in providing accurate responses and the lack of a full explanation for its decision on direct payment constitute service failure. Our remedies guidance suggests compensation of between £50 and £100 for a finding of service failure.
33. The landlord offered £50 in compensation for its standard of complaint handling, which was a positive step. However, this offer does not adequately reflect the detriment to the resident or the other complaint handling failings we have identified.
34. We have therefore ordered the landlord to apologise and pay a further £50 in compensation to fully recognise the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. We have also recommended it provides the resident with its insurance details.

Learning

35. The landlord believed repairs had been completed when they had not. If it had discussed matters with the resident first, this misunderstanding could have been avoided.
36. The landlord should have provided accurate complaint responses, avoiding the need to issue several corrected versions.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

37. There were some gaps in the landlord’s repairs recording. The landlord said it has since obtained a new repairs contract with automatic data transfer to improve its record keeping. It is positive it has taken these steps.

Communication

38. There were communication failings between the landlord and its contractor. Better communication and a proactive approach could have prevented the repairs delays the resident experienced. The landlord said its new contract will improve escalation procedures for repairs that are not completed on time. It is positive the landlord has recognised shortcomings and taken steps to reduce similar issues in the future.