Notting Hill Genesis (202418562)

Background

1. The resident was dissatisfied that the landlord had not replaced her boiler after multiple repairs over several years. She said the compensation the landlord offered did not cover the costs she incurred for showering while the boiler was out of service.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handing of:
   1. Boiler repairs.
   2. The resident’s complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found the landlord responsible for maladministration in its handling of boiler repairs.
4. We found the landlord responsible for maladministration in its handling of the resident’s complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

5. The landlord did not appropriately assess the resident’s needs while she lacked bathing facilities and failed to communicate effectively.
6. The landlord did not acknowledge the resident’s escalation on time and delayed its stage 2 complaint response.

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 have not considered

7. The resident has complained to us that numerous repairs were attempted over several years and feels she should have been given a new boiler sooner. The scope of our investigation will consider the events leading up to the resident’s complaint. This is because the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in our opinion, were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period. This would normally be within 12 months of the matters arising.

The handling of boiler repairs

8. The landlord did not dispute it was responsible for the boiler repairs, as outlined in its repairs policy. We have seen evidence of the landlord completing its annual service in June 2023 with no issues noted.
9. The landlord attended 3 times in October 2024 after reports of no heating or hot water. It said it was unable to gain access due to the resident not being home and not responding to calls. The landlord acted in line with its repairs policy by attempting to attend within 24 hours for an emergency repair. Although the policy does not set out when to close a repair, it was reasonable in this case for the landlord to do so after 3 failed attempts.
10. In January 2024, the resident reported missing radiator valves rather than a boiler fault. The landlord made 2 attempts to attend within its 20‑working‑day timeframe. The resident did not follow up with her service request after the failed appointments. Again the landlord took reasonable steps to complete this repair.
11. On 25 April 2024, the annual service identified that the boiler required parts and the landlord took it out of use. The landlord attempted 2 repairs, which failed. On 9 May 2024 it identified an issue with the flue and decided to replace the boiler. It was reasonable for the landlord to attempt repairs before replacing the boiler, as it must consider value for money.
12. We appreciate the distress and inconvenience caused by the time taken to repair the boiler. However, we also understand that it takes time to survey, plan and install a new boiler. A total of 48 days from the initial service request would have been a reasonable response had the landlord evidenced it had kept the resident updated, assessed the impact and considered alternative interim solutions.
13. However, the landlord has not provided evidence that it communicated regularly with the resident during this period. Given the ongoing impact of having no working boiler, we expect a landlord to provide regular communication by way of updates. This would have helped manage expectations throughout the repair and replacement process. It may also have helped it identify the resident’s lack of bathing facilities.
14. The landlord said the resident had access to an immersion heater, but it has not shown whether this met her needs. It also did not carry out a risk assessment or explore whether the resident had any vulnerabilities. This was a significant failing to give the resident’s circumstances due consideration. A risk‑based approach would have helped the landlord understand the impact of the loss of facilities and identify suitable temporary measures.
15. The landlord has said the resident declined temporary heaters but provided no supporting evidence. Given the resident later sought reimbursement for running heaters, the landlord should have clarified this and requested evidence of additional energy costs in line with its compensation policy.
16. The resident said she had no washing facilities and had to travel to a friend’s home, incurring £30 per day in taxi costs. She requested £1,440 from the landlord as a refund of these expenses sometime after the boiler was replaced. The landlord’s compensation policy says that it may consider reasonable expenses incurred due to its service failure, which the resident highlighted to it. The Ombudsman is unable to assess the reasonableness of the resident’s need to incur these daily costs. This is something the landlord should have done when considering the resident’s request, alongside its compensation policy.
17. The landlord said this amount did not align with its compensation policy but did not explain why. It should have clearly set out its position and considered whether the costs were reasonable and evidenced. Its failure to explain its decision was not appropriate.
18. The resident has told us that she needs constant heat due to having Raynaud syndrome. Again, had the landlord completed a risk assessment it would have identified this vulnerability and taken appropriate action.

Conclusion

19. The landlord took reasonable steps to attempt repairs and later replace the boiler. However, it did not communicate effectively, assess the resident’s needs, fully consider the impact or properly consider her additional costs. These failings caused avoidable distress and inconvenience.
20. The landlord’s apology and offer of £370 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused, good will gesture and a percentage of the rent was not proportionate to these failings.
21. Our compensation guidance says we may award up to £600 for maladministration where there was no permanent impact. This is where the landlord acknowledged failings and made some effort to put things right but failed to fully address the detriment to the resident.
22. The resident experienced avoidable distress and inconvenience of having no bathing facilities for a prolonged period. The landlords failure to provide the household this basic need was not a reasonable response. As such we have ordered an additional £200 compensation for the impact of having no bathing facilities for 48 days.

23. The landlord has a 2-stage complaint policy. This requires it to acknowledge complaints within 5 working days at both stages. The policy requires the landlord to respond at stage 1 within 10 working days and 20 working days at stage 2. These timescales and the landlord’s definition of a complaint were compliant with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) applicable at the time.
24. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 1 May 2024 and issued its stage 1 complaint response the following day. This was prompt and in line with its policy.
25. However, the landlord did not handle the resident’s escalation appropriately. It acknowledged the escalation 25 working days late. It then issued its stage 2 complaint response on 6 August 2024, which was 36 working days late. These delays were not in line with its policy or the Code.
26. The landlord apologised for the delay, which was appropriate. However, it did not explain the cause of the delay or show any learning. It also did not consider compensation for the time and trouble caused, in line with its compensation policy. This was not a reasonable response.
27. In addition, the landlord failed to respond to the resident’s request for compensation for the cost of running electric heaters. This was a missed opportunity to address all aspects of the complaint.
28. Our compensation guidance allows for awards of up to £100 where complaint responses are delayed by more than several days. The compensation ordered reflects the time and trouble caused by these failings. Our suggested learning should also help the landlord improve its complaint handling and record keeping going forward.

Learning

29. It was positive to see the landlord identified some learning in its complaint response and that it was putting measures in place to reduce delays where there was a change in contractor.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

30. Our recommendation for the landlord to properly record the resident’s vulnerabilities will help it in any future service requests. Further to this, the landlord should ensure it has an up-to-date record of all of its resident’s vulnerabilities or requests details of them when a service request is made.

Communication

31. Our Spotlight report on repairs and maintenance explains that failures can be avoided when landlords:
    1. let residents know what to expect regarding repairs and provide a clear schedule for repair visits.
    2. gather feedback from residents and conduct inspections to ensure the work is satisfactory.
32. In this case, the records do not show if the landlord regularly updated the resident on the status of the boiler replacement. Frustration and dissatisfaction may have been avoided if the landlord’s repairs and maintenance team followed our Spotlight report recommendations.
33. Staff should be reminded of the importance of acknowledging and responding to complaints promptly. Also of maintaining regular updates throughout the complaint process, as required by both the Code and good practice. This will help the landlord improve its service.