Notting Hill Genesis (202000349)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202000349

Notting Hill Genesis

10 June 2021

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.
Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

The complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s requests for adaptations to the property.
2. Her reports of repairs required to the property.
3. The landlord’s handling of her complaint.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 39 (h) and (i) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme), the following aspects of the complaint are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
The resident brought a disrepair claim against the landlord regarding repairs required to the property and this issue was also raised in her formal complaint. This report would be considering aspects of the repairs handling which have not formed part of the legal claim but would not be considering the actual issues raised in the claim. It would therefore also not consider how the landlord acted on the eventual settlement as detailed in a consent order by the court. Any dissatisfaction she has with the landlord’s compliance with the court orders may be best referred to the courts as the role of this Service does not include the facilitation of court orders.
Our position here is in accordance with paragraph 39 (h) and (i) of the Scheme which provide as follows:

‘The Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion:

(h) concern matters that are, or have been, the subject of legal proceedings and where a complainant has or had the opportunity to raise the subject matter of the complaint as part of those proceedings.

(i) concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable, or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, a designated person, other tribunal or procedure.’

Any mention of these issues in later sections of this report is for contextual purposes only but the landlord’s action would not be assessed.

Background

The resident is a tenant of the property which is owned by the landlord. She has disabilities and health conditions affecting her mobility and regarding which she requested for the property to be adapted.
This report would be dealing with the complaint referred to it by the resident and as stated by her in the online web form of this Service which she completed on 19 April 2020.

Summary of events

An Occupational Therapist (OT) wrote to the landlord, on 27 March 2019, stating that an assessment had been completed regarding adaptations to the property. The cost of the required adaptation works was estimated to be in excess of £40,000 as it would be extensive. The OT wanted to have a further discussion with the landlord regarding the likelihood of rehousing the resident as an alternative option.
In an email to the OT of 29 March 2019, the landlord referenced having had a telephone conversation with the OT on the same day. It stated that it was unable to estimate how long it would take to find suitable alternative accommodation for the resident. However, based on the short supply of properties, it estimated that it was likely going to be a few years before this was possible. It requested confirmation of the works for which the OT had stated that she would be seeking grant funding. It also requested to be kept updated on the progress of the process. In her response of the same day, the OT stated that the Major Adaptations Panel would meet to confirm any proposed works, after which the landlord would be contacted to seek its confirmation of consent for the works.
In internal correspondence of 6 June 2019, the landlord discussed details of a complaint by the resident on the issue. It stated that the resident had complained about waiting to have a bathroom adapted after more than two years of completing the form which the landlord had requested that she did. She had also complained about several repairs not being done or not completed satisfactorily. She wanted to have a bathroom which was suitable for her disability and for the repairs to be completed.
The landlord had called the resident and discussed the issues over the phone and she stated that she no longer wanted to discuss the issues with a member of staff, who had been contact with her over time, as he had taken no action. She also stated that she would be seeking legal advice on the issue. The resident provided details of the cause of her mobility issues and explained that she had difficulties using the stairs, thus she wanted a toilet installed upstairs. She had identified a cupboard in the upstairs hallway which could be used for this and the boiler relocated. She also wanted the kitchen and bathroom to be extended as these were too small; a stair lift installed and a walk-in shower.
The resident informed the landlord that she had been communicating with its Aids and Adaptations Team but there has been no progress. The OT had submitted a report about the works required and had attended several panel meetings to get a grant for the works because of lack of assistance by the landlord. The council had approved some of the works and she was on the waiting list for this, however, the costs were too high for the council. The resident therefore wanted the landlord to consent to installing the toilet upstairs.
The resident had also stated that she would be happy to be relocated but the landlord had placed her on low priority. She thought that her quality of life in the current situation would have merited a higher priority for relocation. She wanted to be close to her family so was requesting to remain within the area if she was being relocated. The landlord thus explained that family accommodation was in short supply and the adaptations were possibly a quicker route for resolving her property needs.
The resident informed the landlord that she had taken court action against it previously due to the poor condition of the property. Surveyors had inspected the property and specified works to be undertaken but they had not been done. The re–plastering of the wall by a contractor has been substandard and he had not painted all the bedrooms because he required her to remove all the furniture. The landlord had given no consideration to her situation as she had to arrange for carers to be present during visits by contractors and it was difficult to make arrangements to move all her furniture. She had managed to move all the furniture with the help of her family, but the contractor stated that they would not be doing the painting and the bedrooms were not decorated. This was despite her paying approximately £15 pounds for the contractor’s parking. There had also been past incidents of contractors failing to attend repairs appointments without apologies.
On 3 July 2019, solicitors on behalf of the resident wrote to the landlord regarding the condition of the property stating that it had been instructed by her on the issue and inviting the landlord to engage with it in alternative dispute resolution with a view to settlement on the issue.
No further documents have been provided to this Service on events occurring, or communications between the parties, from August to November 2019
On 10 December 2019 the resident wrote the landlord to request decant accommodation due to adaptation works to be undertaken to the property by the local council. The landlord requested for the details of her OT so that it could request information on her disabilities, to aid the selection of appropriate decant accommodation. The information relayed to the landlord was that there would be adaptations to the kitchen; a wet room; stair lift and other facilities to be installed in early February.
The landlord wrote to the council’s contractor on 13 January 2020 requesting for the adaptation works specifications so that it could sign these off prior to commencement. The contractor sent these on 15 January 2020 and informed the landlord that a pre-start meeting would take place on 16 January 2020
In its complaint decision of 19 February 2020, the landlord apologised for the delays in dealing with the complaint raised by the resident. The following sub-paragraphs are a summary of the details of the complaint history and the landlord’s conclusion on the matter as stated in its letter:
1. The resident had written to it on 6 November 2018 to report the issues. She had a disability and other health issues and had waited for more than two years for adaptations to her bathroom and was being assisted in the application process by an OT. A staff member of the landlord had reported that it sent her an OT form on 16 October 2018 but had not received any feedback since. The resident had refuted this as she stated that the staff member had not been helpful, and she had been pursuing the matter for a year without the landlord’s assistance.
2. The council had finally put the resident on a waiting list for adaptations to the property and she needed for the landlord to assist with this. The resident informed the landlord that OTs had stated that the bathroom and kitchen of the property were small. She was suggesting the installation of a walk-in shower, larger kitchen and a stair lift. She had one bathroom downstairs, no toilet upstairs, and was using a commode in her bedroom. She had applied to be re-housed due to her medical condition but had been placed on band C.
3. In addition, the resident had reported that the property had issues of damp, mould, leaks, structural faults, defective windows and doors, amongst other things. She had been in constant communication with the landlord and was considering legal action.
4. The landlord had acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 14 January 2019 and requested details of the repairs required to the property, which she provided. She also explained that she had been in contact with the local council regarding the adaptations and it had clarified that all repairs were to be dealt with by the landlord. A joint inspection was agreed to take place with the landlord and its contractor present. The landlord had not contacted her by 8 March 2019 although she was called by a contractor who stated that he had been provided with the list of required repairs. She expressed her dissatisfaction about not having been warned in advance of the call. She also requested a copy of the list of works.
5. The resident stated that the windows required renewal and she had an appointment with a surveyor to inspect the property on 11 March 2019. The surveyor stated that repairs will be undertaken to the windows frames and walls and that she would be responsible for repairs to the walls. He also stated that the back door and fencing would be repaired rather than replaced. She disagreed with these findings and other suggestions of the surveyor.
6. On 14 March 2019 the resident informed the landlord that she had removed the wallpaper in the bedrooms of the property and there was a problem with the middle bedroom wall. This wall had previously been repaired following court action, but the works were inadequate. She had provided photographs to the landlord on its request and was advised that the windows would not be replaced for another 20 years but would be repaired at this time. She was requesting full inspection to assess the condition of the windows. The landlord had promised to undertake an inspection and to provide a list of works required. It had also stated that works had been agreed for the windows and walls and she would be contacted by a contractor to arrange this, but her complaint would not be escalated whilst the issues remained outstanding.
7. The landlord had provided a list of the works, but she informed it that there were outstanding issues which had been missed out and provided the details. An inspection visit took place on 10 April 2019, but the windows and walls were not included. The landlord provided her with the surveyor’s inspection reports which stated that the windows were in good condition and would last another 10 to 15 years. However, the landlord confirmed that a contractor would be contacting her regarding repairs to the window and wall. The contractor contacted her, on 7 May 2019, to request availability for the works commencing on 8 May 2019. She was advised that the schedule of works would be provided on the first day of the works, but she requested for this to be given to her in advance. She needed to review this, as arrangements had to be made with her carers due to her disabilities.
8. The resident was also contacted regarding paperwork for adaptation works to be undertaken to the property. The contractor arranged to commence work on the walls on 14 May 2019. She was provided with the scope of works and she contacted the landlord on 17 May 2019 to inform it that the contractor could not begin until 27 May 2019. As this was a bank holiday, she asked for this to be moved to a later date and she needed to confirm availability with her carer and family. The works were agreed to begin on 3 June 2019; the landlord stated that it would confirm parking permit payment arrangements with her.
9. The resident also contacted the landlord on 20 May 2019 to state that she had not been made aware that the contractors would need for the rooms to be emptied before they could be painted. This was not possible, so she had asked them not to undertake any painting. The works were completed on 22 May 2019 and there was no painting. She provided the landlord with the dates and times when the contractors used the parking spaces and the total cost for this, which she had paid. The landlord advised that it would arrange for her to be reimbursed.
10. The resident was informed on 10 June 2019 by the contractor that it would attend the property on 11 June 2019 to commence works on other parts of the property. She called the landlord to advise that she had not been given advance notification of this and it apologised. She requested for the escalation of her complaint, but the landlord stated that the issues had to be resolved first, however it would be discussed with managers. The works were rearranged to commence on 17 June 2019, but the resident did not agree to provide access on the day. The landlord called her on 28 June 2019 to advise that the works will be undertaken by the local council which was adapting her bathroom. The bathroom was going to be repaired by the landlord, but it would no longer undertake extensive repairs due to the adaptations.
11. The landlord contacted her on 16 August 2019 apologising for the delays in acknowledging the issues and advising that the review of her complaint will take approximately 12 weeks. She was also contacted on 24th September 2019 but had stated that she could not discuss the issue on the advice of her solicitors. The landlord therefore clarified that it would not deal with ongoing legal issues through its complaints process. It was not clear to it if the matter was still being dealt with by her solicitors.
12. The landlord stated that it had not received a report from the OT regarding the adaptation works but had only been provided a request by the local council to grant permission. It could not install major adaptations without an OT’s recommendation. It understood that the OT had not recommended the installation of a toilet upstairs as a stairlift would be installed for access to the downstairs toilet. It stated that the following works has been agreed, to take place on the receipt of the ‘Disabled Facilities Grant’ (DFG):

Ground floor configuration including creation of a new level access shower

Relocation of the kitchen with adaptations

Stair lift

Step lift and rear access

The landlord stated that delays to the works were due to the local council and it was in communication with the OT on the issue and would update her. It would ensure the proper coordination of appointments and arrange a temporary decant from the property if required. It apologised for the inconvenience to her of the delays and prior arrangements. It noted that she preferred to have one contractor in attendance and not several but explained that another contractor’s attendance had been required. In the future it would attempt to group repairs together and allocate these to one suitable contractor wherever possible.
The contractor was going to undertake repairs until it was advised by the landlord that the local council would be attending to undertake adaptation works. It was not cost effective therefore for the council’s contractors to attend after the repairs as this world result in further disruption and damage to works already undertaken. It would also be inconveniencing for the resident to have two extensive works visits within a short time.
Furthermore, the landlord stated that it had not received sufficient information from the council regarding the adaptations and could not undertake any adaptation works without an OT’s input. It had therefore been unable to make any progress on her request previously.
As the resident’s reports about the quality of works carried out previously to the walls was outside the six-month limit for a complaint investigation the landlord stated that it could not consider this aspect of her case. It advised that it would arrange for the property to be reinspected after works had been undertaken and any outstanding issues would be dealt with. However, she could contact the council’s Environmental Health Office for assistance in inspecting the property.
The landlord offered the resident the total sum of £550 in compensation as follows:

£250 – for poor communication with contractors causing short notice on appointments which was particularly inconveniencing due to arrangements

£250 – for delays in progressing her complaint at both stages

£30 – for no attendance by contractors on a particular day

£20 – for the parking permits which may not have been refunded

The landlord wrote to the council on 9 March 2020 to request an update on the adaptation works. In its response of 10 March 2020, the council stated that the works were progressing well, and the building aspect would be completed before the due date of 20 April 2020. They stated that the stair and step lift could be installed with the resident back in the property.
A consent order was made by the court on 23 April 2020 on the settlement of the disrepair claims made by the resident against the landlord. In a letter of 27 April 2020, the landlord’s solicitors detailed the settlement terms for the disrepair claim. It stated that surveyors had inspected the property in September 2019 and identified works to be carried out. It had now agreed on the amount to be paid to the resident in settlement and works would be undertaken as identified.

Assessment and findings

As already stated in the jurisdiction section, this report would not assess the landlord’s handling of the issues which were the subject of the disrepair claim, the claims process, or the settlement between the parties. Therefore, with respect to repairs, this report is limited to the consideration of the adequacy of the landlord’s handling of the residents reports about repairs visits to the property.
The resident disagrees with the landlord’s account of events, this is particularly with respect to the timescales of its communications with the council and her OT. While the landlord’s singular decision on the formal complaint has provided considerable detail of the issue, it has not provided this Service with sufficient documentation in evidence of its version of events. Nonetheless, it must be clarified that there is sufficient information regarding the core issues on the basis of which this Service must make a finding in this case.
Firstly, the resident requested for adaptations to be made to the property due to her disabilities. Landlords are expected to make reasonable adjustments to assist the day to day living of their tenants. However structural changes, like the provision of stairlifts and installation of toilets, are usually undertaken on the assessment of an OT and using the DFG. It is the responsibility of councils, in their capacity of a local authorities, to deal with adaptations required to properties on the basis of disability.
The documents provided in this case indicate that landlord had appropriately advised the resident that any adaptation works would be undertaken as recommended by her OT and approved by a panel of the local council. The landlord would then be required to confirm that it was consenting for the works to commence on the property. No evidence has been provided to this service of the landlord withholding its consent for the execution of any works approved by the OT.
According to the landlord’s decision, part of the resident’s complaint was that she had been requesting the adaptations to the property for approximately two years previously. It also stated that the resident’s complaint on the issue was made in November 2018 and acknowledged by it in January 2019. The documents provided to this Service indicate that the OT informed the landlord about the completion of the assessments and intentions apply for the DFG in March 2019. No evidence has been provided to this Service to support the resident’s assertions that there were delays to the OT’s assessment due to actions of the landlord. This Service is unable to ascertain whether any delays occurred due to the local authority’s handling of the adaptations approval process, as it has no jurisdiction to investigate the process.
The documents also indicate that the landlord was awaiting updates on the DFG application which would enable it to confirm its consent to the adaptations. No evidence has been provided that it had any documentation from the OT to the effect that an upstairs toilet has been recommended. Thus, this Service is unable to conclude that there was a requirement on the landlord to provide a toilet upstairs. In addition, as already stated, structural adaptations have to be undertaken as approved by the council’s panel and on receipt of the requisite funding.
With respect to the repairs visits, this report has considered the landlord’s handling of the arrangement of the appointments. It is good practise for landlords and their contractors, acting on their behalf, to ensure that adequate notice is given to tenants whilst arranging works visits. This consideration was particularly necessary in light of the resident’s health condition. Several shortcomings were detailed in the complaints decision as it narrated repeated incidents of extremely short notice of appointments. This would have resulted in considerable distress and inconvenience to the resident.
The landlord acknowledged that its actions were below reasonable standards and offered the resident £250 in compensation for this aspect of the complaint. This Service finds that the amount offered was sufficient redress for its actions in this regard. It also compensated her for the missed appointment by a contractor and refunded her payment for the cost of parking on behalf of the contractors.
Another issue of dispute regarding the repair’s arrangements is with respect to the coordination of the adaptation works by the council’s contractors whilst there were outstanding repairs which were the responsibility of the landlord. The landlord provided a reasonable response to the resident in stating that it decided that the adaptation works, which were extensive, should be completed before repairs would be undertaken. The operators had assessed the situation and found that the reverse would result in some damage to completed areas and therefore require a repeat of works. It is expected that the landlord would consider the most cost effective and timesaving measure for undertaking the works.
The landlord also responded to the resident’s concerns about the number of contractors being present in the property at the same time. It provided a reasonable explanation about the difficulties of managing several different types of work with one set of contractors and expressed its willingness to do this wherever possible.
When the landlord was informed that the DFG had been approved and the council would be commencing the adaptation works it sought further information from the council in January 2019. Other documentation provided with respect to another complaint, on the landlord’s handling of the decanting the resident, indicate that there were delays of a couple of weeks to the start of works as the parties disputed the decant process.
On the matter of the handling of the formal complaint by the landlord, this Service notes that there were unacceptable levels of delay. The singular decision to this complaint was made more than a year after the formal complaint by the resident, and after she had made a further verbal complaint in June 2019. The landlord’s Complaints Policy requires it to acknowledge a complaint within two days of its receipt and to provide a response within ten working days after this. It referenced delays to both stages of the formal complaint, but no evidence has been provided to this Service of a first decision having been made or the landlord writing to the resident to provide any explanation about the delays. Furthermore, the delay for a period of over one year, could not be justified.
The landlord, however, acknowledged its shortcomings in this respect in its decision and offered the resident compensation for this aspect of her complaint. One of the Ombudsman’s dispute resolutions principles is that landlords should take action to put things right when it is established that there has been a failure in their delivery of service to tenants. Where the landlord is unable to restore the complainants’ position, the offer is compensation is a means of putting things right.
The amount offered by the landlord in compensation is sufficient redress for this aspect of the case as it falls within the Remedies Guidance of this Service for similar events. This is the highest amount recommended for cases where ‘the impact experienced by the complainant could include distress and inconvenience, time and trouble, disappointment, loss of confidence, and delays in getting matters resolved.’

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s requests for adaptations to the property.
In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Scheme the landlord has offered redress to the resident prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily by the landlord in respect of its handling of:
1. Her reports of repairs required to the property.
2. The landlord’s handling of her formal complaint.

Reasons

No evidence has been provided to show that the adaptations were delayed by the actions of the landlord as this was to be approved and implemented by the local authority. The landlord acknowledged the shortcomings to its handling of the repairs visits to the property and offered adequate compensation to the resident in this regard. The landlord acknowledged its shortcomings with respect to the handling of the formal complaint and offered adequate compensation to the resident in this regard.

Recommendations

The landlord should consider arranging with the resident to conduct a post-works inspection visit of the property to determine whether there are any outstanding repairs. These would be dealt with as new repairs issues for which she is able to make a new and separate complaint if she remains dissatisfied with its actions.
The landlord should reoffer the compensation of £550 identified within its final complaint response. This should be done within four weeks of the determination.