Notting Hill Genesis (202329362)

Background

1. The resident lives in a block and was burgled on 13 October 2023. She told the landlord on the same day and asked it to investigate. The resident was unhappy about the level of security of the scaffolding on her building.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Concerns about the security of scaffolding.
   2. Complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found:
   1. Service failure in how the landlord handled the resident’s concerns about the security of scaffolding.
   2. Service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

4. The landlord did not conduct a thorough investigation into the resident’s concerns. While it did speak to its contractor, it did not obtain all the relevant information. It stopped corresponding with the resident at the time of the burglary. However, it acknowledged this and looked to put things right.
5. The landlord should have recognised the resident’s communication as a complaint. Its stage 1 response contained inaccuracies about when the scaffolding was handed over. Its stage 2 response was delayed, though it acknowledged this and tried to put things right.

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 has said she wants compensation for stolen items. We do not determine liability or negligence and do not award damages as a court would. We also do not assess claims in the same way an insurance provider would, as these are matters for a resident’s household insurance or the courts. Our role is to consider the landlord’s actions in response to the reports and whether it acted in line with its policies and procedures. The resident may wish to seek independent legal advice if she considers the landlord liable or negligent.

What we did investigate

7. The resident told the landlord that she had been burgled on 13 October 2023. She requested that the landlord investigate. While a full investigation of a burglary is the responsibility of the police, the landlord should have investigated the resident’s concerns. The evidence shows that it did contact the contractors responsible for the scaffolding at the time of the incident. This was a reasonable step for the landlord to take.
8. However, there is no evidence that the landlord fully investigated the resident’s concerns at the time of the complaint. Its contractor said it had not observed any suspicious activity during the erection of the scaffolding. There is no evidence that the landlord asked, or received, information about how the scaffolding was left on the date of the burglary. This is despite the landlord identifying that this was a relevant line of enquiry with the contractor. Overall, the landlord did not carry out a thorough investigation into the resident’s concerns at that time.
9. The landlord did investigate the resident’s concerns further as part of its stage 2 response on 8 April 2024. The resident provided a picture of the scaffolding, saying it showed it was not secure. The landlord spoke to its contractor and told the resident that the scaffolding hatches would have been locked, and that the photographs did not demonstrate otherwise. It was reasonable for the landlord to follow up on the concerns raised as part of the stage 2 complaint and to make further enquiries.
10. Although the landlord did make further enquiries, it’s response to the resident was that the hatches would have been locked. This shows a gap in its investigation. It did not check whether the hatches were fitted with locks. An email from 16 October 2023 suggested chains and locks might not have been in place. This raises questions about how thorough the landlord investigated this matter. The landlord should have followed this up and confirmed what security measures were in place at the time of the burglary.
11. The landlord was consistent in referring the resident to her contents insurance and offering to assist with the insurance application. This was reasonable of the landlord as this is the standard route of recovery for personal possessions after a burglary.
12. The landlord was not aware that the resident did not have contents insurance. The resident was concerned about negligence. So, if the landlord had been aware it would have been reasonable to consider referring the resident to its liability insurers. Or, to its contractor’s insurers if it believed the contractor was responsible. The landlord cannot act on information it was not aware of. However, had it conducted a more thorough investigation in October 2023 the resident may have had the chance to tell the landlord.
13. The landlord has shown it accepted that its communication fell short of its own expectations. It offered the resident £250 for these failings. This is the maximum amount in its compensation policy for when there has been a failure that has caused distress and inconvenience that was not manageable for a resident. Given this, we find it to be a proportionate amount offered in the circumstances for this specific failing. We would have found a failing of maladministration but for the steps it took to put things right.
14. Despite this, the landlord still should have conducted a reasonable investigation into the resident’s concerns at the time of the burglary. The resident has described the impact of the burglary to us. The landlord could not mitigate the impact of the burglary on the resident. However, the lack of an investigation at the time increased the distress and inconvenience to her. It meant the landlord missed an opportunity to provide reassurance and maintain a constructive landlord and resident relationship.
15. We order the landlord to pay an additional £100 compensation. This recognises the gaps in its initial investigation and the resulting distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused to the resident. The landlord had acknowledged some failings and made an offer of £250 to put things right. However, this did not fully address the detriment to the resident and was not proportionate to the failings identified in our investigation. When combined, the total compensation is £350. In line with our compensation guidance, this amount is proportionate to the impact on the resident. It also reflects that, even if the landlord had carried out a reasonable investigation, this would not necessarily have changed the outcome for the resident.
16. The landlord is now aware that the resident did not have contents insurance. We have received no evidence that the landlord has spoken to the resident about referring her to its liability insurer or to its contractors, if it believes that they were responsible for the scaffold’s security. We have made a recommendation because of this.

17. The landlord’s complaint policy at the time of the complaint complied with the definition of a complaint in the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) April 2022. The timescales in the landlord’s complaint procedure complied with the Code. Though it’s complaint procedure says it will acknowledge complaints in 2 working days.
18. The resident’s email of 16 October 2023 fits the definition of a complaint. The landlord did not recognise this as a complaint at the time. It took intervention from us for the landlord to process it as a complaint, which meant the landlord took 81 working days to respond.
19. The landlord responded on 9 February 2024. This was 5 working days from when we contacted the landlord to respond to the complaint on 2 February 2024. The landlord followed its timescales after we contacted it.
20. The landlord’s stage 1 response contained incorrect information. It informed the resident that the scaffolding had been signed off on 16 October 2023. The evidence shows, and the landlord has confirmed to us, that the scaffolding was signed off on 18 October 2023. The landlord should ensure the information contained within its responses is accurate.
21. The landlord has not provided the resident’s stage 2 escalation. However, in its stage 2 response it said there had been a delay and offered the resident £50 compensation. We may have found maladministration if the landlord had not partly recognised its failings.
22. The landlord failed to recognise that the resident was making a complaint and did not address this in its complaint responses. While it recognised that it had not responded to the resident’s emails, it did not consider them from a complaint handling perspective. Although it identified a delay at stage 2, it did not fully recognise all its failings. The landlord should have identified that it missed the initial complaint and that there were inaccuracies in its stage 1 response. We order the landlord to pay an additional £30 compensation, bringing the total to £80. This amount is in line with landlord’s compensation policy for when its service standards have not been met and inconvenience has been caused to a resident.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

23. The landlord largely captured the extent of its investigation into the resident’s concerns. However, it did not record its conversation with its contractor as part of the stage 2 complaint response. It also did not include a record of the resident’s escalation to stage 2. The landlord should ensure it keeps a complete and accurate record of all information relevant to a complaint.

Communication

24. The landlord’s communication with the resident has been considered as part of the above report. It was not appropriate as the landlord should have responded to her communications in October 2023. However the landlord recognised this and looked to put things right.