Notting Hill Genesis (201909347)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201909347

Notting Hill Genesis

23 February 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 resident’s complaint is about the landlord’s response to his reports of the following issues in the building:

1. Water outages;
2. Security failures;
3. Management of communal areas;
4. Communication with residents; this Service will also consider the landlord’s complaint handling;
5. External decoration of the building; and
6. Fire safety.

Background and summary of events

2. The resident is a leaseholder of the property.
3. There have been a number of issues reported within the building that affect several residents. For the purposes of this investigation, the Ombudsman will only be considering the landlord’s response to the resident individually and not to other residents. This is as the complaint has not been raised to the landlord or brought to the Ombudsman as a group complaint. Correspondingly, the determinations and any orders/ recommendations made will relate specifically and exclusively to the resident’s complaint. References will be made to other residents for contextual purposes only.

Policies and Procedures

4. The provisions of the lease set out that the landlord is responsible for the pipes, sewers, drains and water apparatus. It also confirms that the landlord is to, so far as is practicable, use all reasonable endeavours to keep the common parts adequately tended to, as well as maintain the external parts of the building.
5. Building regulations require every communal stairwell to have an Automatic Opening Vent to extract smoke.
6. The landlord’s complaints policy provides for a two stage complaints procedure in which the landlord has 10 working days to respond to a stage one complaint, and 20 working days to respond to a stage two complaint.
7. This Service has not been provided with the landlord’s compensation policy that was in force at the time of the original complaint, but the current policy provides for payment of compensation in various situations. Goodwill gestures may be offered in acceptance of service failure that the landlord is “committed to putting right.” Where residents experience distress or inconvenience following service failure, the landlord may offer a discretionary payment of compensation. Residents may also be entitled to compensation for interruptions to hot water supply, including payments for unplanned continuous interruptions of more than 24 hours, providing payments of £30 for each 24-hour time period after the first 24 hours of interruption (up to a maximum of £500).

Summary of events

8. On 15 October 2019, the resident submitted a formal complaint regarding the “lack of service and lack of responding to residents,” partly following on from an email he had sent on 7 October regarding issues within the building. He requested a phone call to discuss further. This Service has not seen notes relating to the telephone conversation but understands that the resident complained of the issues set out in the definition above.
9. On 3 December 2019, the landlord provided its stage one response, it noted that in relation to the:
   1. Service – a new service delivery model was being implemented, meaning residents would be allocated a Property Management Officer (PMO). It was hoped that this would result in a “marked improvement in service;”
   2. Points raised in the resident’s complaint, these would be discussed during a Residents’ Meeting in January 2020; and
   3. Terraces – the shed had been removed.
10. On 17 December, the landlord emailed the resident stating that an engineer had attended to inspect the water supply and had concluded that the problem was localised to his property and a plumber would be sent to inspect his domestic installations. It confirmed that a residents’ meeting would be arranged for mid- late January 2020 to discuss the other points of his complaint.
11. The resident continued to experience and report water outages throughout December and January 2020.
12. According to the resident, a residents’ meeting was held in January 2020 in which the landlord explained to residents about fire safety issues. This Service has not seen contemporaneous notes of this meeting. The resident states that none of the action points set out in this meeting were fulfilled.
13. The resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response to his complaint issues and lack of action following on from the residents’ meeting. He requested escalation of his complaint on 13 February 2020.
14. The resident emailed the landlord in March 2020 again complaining of a lack of water, pointing out that this was not acceptable in a pandemic and that he would be taking legal action if any of the residents of the block contracted Coronavirus. He copied the BBC and Prime Minister’s office into the email.
15. The resident repeated his complaint on 11 April stating that residents were without water “for the third time during the pandemic” and that he was having to fill his bathtub before going to bed to ensure he had water for the next day.
16. The landlord provided its stage two response on 28 April 2020 in which it upheld the resident’s complaint “in its entirety.” It acknowledged and apologised for the “difficulties faced in attaining a full response to the complaint.” It acknowledged the service failures in its complaints handling – the delays and unsatisfactory responses – and offered £50 compensation as a goodwill gesture. It also confirmed it would be making a one-off contribution of £150 to all leaseholders (totalling £10,800) which would be credited to the building’s service charge account for the current financial period. It addressed the specific elements of the complaint as follows:
    1. Water outages –it had failed to escalate the water issues as a matter of urgency. This had now been done and it was awaiting the results of an investigation. It confirmed it would act on recommended works and keep residents updated. It would in future have one point of contact for residents on the matter;
    2. Security failures – it apologised for the previous service failures in its approach to security and was introducing a number of trial security measures including the installation of secure mailboxes, inspection of current suitability of locks in shared areas and a weekly newsletter to include details of the local Safer Neighbourhoods team;
    3. Management of communal areas – it again apologised for the service failures identified in its management of the communal areas. The shed had now been removed and the responsible party made aware of the reasons why this was prohibited. It confirmed it would in future monitor the use of the communal areas;
    4. Communication issues – it apologised for the number of instances when the resident did not receive a response and stated it was committed to rebuilding trust with residents. It hoped that the resident had experienced an improvement in service since it had updated its service model;
    5. External decoration of the building – it apologised that the external decoration of the block had not been updated as it should have been, and that this would go ahead in spring/ summer 2021; and
    6. Fire safety – a contractor had now been found to inspect the Automatically Opening Vents (AOVs) on each floor of the block and carry out any necessary works. The landlord apologised for the delay and inconvenience caused as a result.
17. The resident contacted the landlord on 26 August stating that progress on the works had been and remained “extremely slow” – there had been no improvement in security; residents had not yet seen a timeline for redecoration works and that the landlord had not yet held a virtual meeting as promised.
18. The resident continued to contact the landlord regarding the lack of access to water. He emailed on multiple occasions in October and November 2020, stating that he was concerned about the consequences of a lack of water amidst the Coronavirus pandemic when it meant that residents were unable to wash their hands. He again copied a number of contacts into the email, including the BBC, the Prime Minister’s office and national newspapers.
19. The resident’s local MP emailed the landlord on 19 November 2020 noting she was “very concerned” that the water issues were ongoing. She requested an update and a meeting to discuss the landlord’s response. There is no evidence that the landlord responded to this email.
20. The landlord wrote to the resident with a stage two follow up letter on 7 December 2020 in order to update him on what had occurred in relation to the “remaining items” since its stage two response. It noted that in relation to the:
    1. Water outages – updates on this issue had not been “as forthcoming as one would hope,” but recent recommended works to mitigate the outages had been approved;
    2. Security failures – it was “imperative that the expansion or implementation of a more robust CCTV system be actioned asap.” The weekly newsletter was provided for a time but was discontinued, and it now suggested a fortnightly newsletter be circulated;
    3. Communication issues – the point of contact provided to the residents was “not as communicative as one would expect” but the landlord had since rearranged this individual’s workload to free up more time for him to focus more on the needs of residents of the block;
    4. Degradation of property – the external works had been delayed. The landlord considered that to carry out those works would be “too wasteful” at that time but that it would explore carrying out internal decorative works; and
    5. The goodwill gesture – it proposed an increase to £100.    
21. Subsequent to the update letter of 7 December, the landlord increased its offer of compensation to £250.
22. The resident has reported that the issues outlined in the follow up letter remain unresolved. He reports that the water issues are continuing, with outages on average five times per month. He reports that outages have occurred for a duration of anything from 15 minutes to several hours at any one time, once occurring for 10 solid days.

Assessment and findings

Water outages

23. The landlord does not dispute its service obligations in relation to the water supply or the rights of its residents of access to water. In its final response in April 2020, it stated that it was awaiting the results of an investigation into the issue; in December 2020 it stated that mitigation works had been approved. There is no evidence that the works have been carried out and the resident has reported that no further action has been taken on this issue and that he continues to experience issues with his water supply.
24. The water supply issue has been ongoing and has remained unresolved since at least October 2019. It is highly inappropriate and unreasonable that the resident is continuing to experience these issues, particularly considering the health and safety implications of a lack of water supply and after the landlord has itself acknowledged the service failures in its handling of the issue. The landlord has failed to act on its own stated intentions.
25. The landlord has therefore demonstrated maladministration in its handling of the water outages and orders will be made for further action and for compensation. The landlord has not provided evidence as to how many times water outages did in fact occur, therefore compensation will be ordered for distress and inconvenience caused as a result of outages generally.

Security failures

26. In its stage two complaint response, the landlord itself states that “residents should feel they can rely on their landlord to put in place the necessary physical features and communication strategy required” to deter issues arising out of security failures. This Service would agree that residents should have this expectation. The landlord accepted that “this approach does not seem to have been pursued in the past.”
27. Despite a number of suggestions put forward by the landlord in its complaint response to improve security, it appears that none of the resolutions offered have been put in place, therefore the landlord has again failed to take adequate action, and this demonstrates service failure in its management of the security of the building.

Management of communal areas

28. The landlord is obliged to use all reasonable endeavours, so far as is practicable, to keep the common parts adequately tended to. It has acknowledged its obligations to also enforce the terms of residents’ leases. The shed in place on the fourth floor was removed by the landlord and the terms of the lease enforced, in line with these obligations. This action was therefore reasonable.

Communication and complaint response

29. Resolutions were again made by the landlord for better communication to residents. Whilst it did seek to update residents in its follow up letter of 7 December 2020, it suggested that communication was still not up to standard despite appointing a PMO, who was, according to the landlord, “not as communicative as one would expect.” It is inappropriate that communication is not up to standard, particularly considering the breakdown in trust in the relationship between the landlord and the resident. And the continuance of this following the implementation of the PMO, compounds this further.
30. The landlord’s stage one complaint was provided 36 working days after the resident’s complaint was submitted. This is almost four times its service timescale. It did not address many of the issues raised by the resident in his complaint (something later acknowledged in the landlord’s stage two response).
31. Its stage two response was provided 52 working days after the resident requested escalation; this is more than double its policy response target. The response was, however, comprehensive and offered suggestions for improvement in the aspects of service which the resident complained about. The resident has reported that these resolutions have not been followed up. Whilst the landlord has offered compensation for its service failure, it remains inappropriate that the resolutions have not been followed up and renders the complaint response ineffective. Therefore, there has been service failure in this respect.

External decoration of building

32. The landlord accepted its obligation regarding external decoration as expressed in the lease and, despite agreeing to carry out decoration in spring/ summer 2021, it later stated that this would be “too wasteful.” It is correct that the landlord must conduct a balancing exercise when considering updating the external decoration of the building. This Service would not make an order for the landlord to carry out external redecoration works where the landlord has carried out an assessment of its redecoration obligations with and found this to be unfeasible at the present time.
33. While this may be reasonable, this Service would, however, expect the landlord to update residents on the reasoning why it has now reached this conclusion and also on future plans for external decoration, and will therefore recommend that this is done in this instance.   

Fire safety

34. Once again, the landlord acknowledged its obligations in relation to fire safety. In line with these obligations, it arranged for contractors to carry out the necessary work to make the AOVs of satisfactory and effective working condition. This was a reasonable course of action.

Determination (decision)

35. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the water outages.
36. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s response to security failures. 
37. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s management of the communal areas.
38. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s communication and complaint handling.
39. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s management of external decoration to the building.
40. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to fire safety concerns.

Reasons

41. The water supply issues have continued for an unreasonable amount of time without sufficient resolution and, despite the landlord having identified resolution works, it has failed to take appropriate action to resolve the issues.
42. The landlord has acknowledged its failings in relation to its management of the security of the building, but again has failed to take appropriate action to resolve the issues, despite having identified what needs to be done.
43. The landlord has enforced compliance with the terms of the lease in relation to the communal areas, therefore no maladministration has been identified in terms of its management of the communal areas.
44. Service failure was demonstrated in the landlord’s complaints handling, specifically in the delays in its response, its failure to comprehensively address the complaint and failure to follow up on complaint resolutions.
45. Whilst the landlord has acknowledged its obligations in relation to the external decoration of the building, it is entitled to conduct a balancing exercise considering its financial resources and whether it is currently feasible to carry out external decoration works.
46. The landlord has arranged for the necessary works to the AOVs to be carried out, in line with its obligations.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

47. The landlord is ordered to take the following actions in line with its complaint response, within two months of the date of this report:
    1. Carry out the approved water supply mitigation works; and
    2. Install a robust CCTV system in the communal areas of the building.
48. The landlord is also ordered to pay a total of £1,450 to the resident, comprising:
    1. £250 already offered by the landlord in its complaint response (if not already paid);
    2. £800 in compensation for the distress and inconvenience experienced as a result of the water outages, to include compensation for the failure to carry out resolution works and for the number of complaints made;
    3. £200 in compensation for failure to follow up on its complaint resolutions; and
    4. £200 for the inconvenience of the resident having to chase for responses to his complaints.
49. The landlord is to offer a written apology to the residents of the building for its failings.

The landlord is to confirm compliance with the above orders within two months from the date of this report.

Recommendations

50. The landlord is to review its plans for external redecoration, provide an explanation to residents as to why the works would be ‘too wasteful’ and update residents of an expected timetable for external/internal redecoration works within one month of the date of this report.
51. The landlord is to carry out staff training on effective complaint response in line with its own policy and this Service’s complaint handling code: https://www.housing-ombudsman.org.uk/landlords-info/complaint-handling-code/

It is recommended that the landlord complies with the above within two months from the date of this letter, and updates all residents of the building on its actions taken within two months of the date of this report.