Notting Hill Genesis (202008840)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202008840

Notting Hill Genesis

7 May 2021


Our approach

Under our early resolution process, the Ombudsman works with the resident and landlord to explore the issues in dispute, identify the matters that remain outstanding and assist in reaching an agreed settlement.

The complaint

  1. The complaint concerns:
    1. The landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s internal windowsill and wall.
    2. The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint and communication.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 55(c) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress to the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the following complaints satisfactorily:
    1. The landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s internal windowsill and wall.
    2. The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint and communication.

How the complaint was resolved

  1. Paragraph 55(c) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that:
    1. “At any time, the Ombudsman may determine the investigation of a complaint immediately if satisfied that the member has made an offer of redress following the Ombudsman’s intervention which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily. This will result in a finding of ‘resolved with intervention’.”
  2. I am therefore satisfied, following the intervention of this Service, that the landlord has now taken actions to remedy the matters raised which resolve the complaint satisfactorily.
  3. The resident mentioned that she initially contacted the landlord on 7 May 2019 to report issues with an external leak affecting her internal windowsill, which led to a work order being raised and an inspection being carried out. The resident advised that she then contacted the landlord on 17 June and 24 July 2019 as she had not received any further responses from it about this. However, the above was not reflected in its records.
  4. On 15 November 2019, the resident emailed the landlord “to raise a formal complaint with the repairs and leasehold teams”. The resident advised of, and expressed her dissatisfaction with, the following:
    1. She initially reported the issues regarding her windowsill to the landlord on 7 May 2019 and provided photographs and videoclips as evidence.
    2. She was advised by the landlord that “a work order was raised” and that it would take up to 20 days for an operative to attend. However, an inspection was carried out on 15 May 2019 and the attending operative “confirmed it was an external issue and that there was a leak which was rotting [the] windowsill away.” Furthermore, the resident advised that she was informed that “MDF” was used on the “internal windowsill” which allowed moisture in and that an “external inspection” would be carried out.
    3. The resident then contacted the landlord on 17 and 24 June 2019 to chase it for a response to the above inspection, and she attempted to complain to it about this on 24 July 2019 but did not receive a response.
    4. The landlord confirmed to the resident, on 30 July 2019, that an inspection would be carried out on 6 August 2019.
    5. The landlord then contacted the resident on 9 August 2019 to advise that, following its external inspection, it could not identify any “signs of cracks or dampness”.
    6. The resident advised that she continued to chase the landlord, in respect of the repair issues with the windowsill, which resulted in “another operative” being sent out to the property who identified the repair issue and carried out repair works on 24 October 2019.
    7. The resident advised that she felt that the repair issues to the internal windowsill were caused by the “cracks on [the] external window ledge” and that the landlord took an extended amount of time to remedy these. Therefore, the resident advised that she felt that the landlord was responsible for the remedial works to the internal repair issues as well, including because of the standard of its workmanship and its incorrect use of “MDF” on her windowsill.
    8. Furthermore, the resident addressed the fact that she had “been going round in circles with [the landlord’s] teams for [six] months” and requested for a formal complaint to be raised about this.
  5. The resident then wrote to the landlord on 11 December 2019, as a result of a telephone conversation with it on that date, to advise that, as an outcome to her complaint she would like for the landlord to:
    1. Acknowledge that the repair issues with her internal windowsill were caused by the materials used and “ bad workmanship”.
    2. Repair and replace the internal windowsill.
  6. The landlord issued a stage one complaint acknowledgement to the resident on the same day and then issued a stage one complaint response to her on 23 January 2020 addressing the following:
    1. Damage to windowsill – the landlord apologised, confirmed that the external leak was remedied and that it had arranged for an inspection to be carried out at the property to identify if any further repairs were needed.
    2. Materials used on the windowsill – the landlord advised it could not identify the first surveyor who had attended the property and that the second surveyor was an operative, and therefore not qualified to comment on the suitability of the materials used. However, the landlord confirmed that the new surveyor would assess the materials used on the windowsill as well.
    3. Amount of time taken to carry out an inspection and lack of communication – the landlord apologised for the inconvenience caused by this, but it was unable to confirm why this had taken such a long time and explained that it now had a new way of working following its merger with another landlord.
    4. As an outcome the landlord apologised for the inconvenience caused, advised that its processes had changed recently and that it “requested a claim form” to be sent to the resident in order for her to be able to submit an insurance claim to it for “internal damage”. Furthermore, the landlord confirmed that a new surveyor would be attending the resident’s property for an assessment and that it would “be happy to cover the cost of the excess” as compensation.
  7. On 27 January 2020, the resident emailed the landlord to confirm that a surveyor attended the property that day and asked it to address the following matters:
    1. Whether the person attending was a “qualified surveyor” or “an operative”.
    2. That the surveyor “took very minimal photos” of the affected area and described this as “very large, mouldy, rotten and [contained] yellowish watermarks”.
    3. That the surveyor “was not acknowledging the external damage”.
    4. Whether the surveyor was provided with the refurbishment history of the building.
    5. That the surveyor confirmed that they would not be able to “determine” the materials used for the affected area without inspecting “the grain of the wood”.
  1. Following their above assessment, the landlord’s surveyor issued a report, concluding that the “window board” was “structurally solid but with minor aesthetic issues” and that the “material used on [the] window board [was] standard”. Furthermore, the surveyor recommended that the “window board require[ed] minor remedial work and decoration” including renewal of “the seal at the edges with the window frame, remove flaky paint, fill the minor holes, sanding and repainting”. The landlord provided the resident with a copy of the surveyor’s report on 13 March 2020, when it emailed her to advise that, as per the terms of her lease, it was not responsible for repairs to the internal windowsill.
  2. The resident wrote to the landlord on 4 April 2020 to request that her complaint be escalated to the second and final stage of its complaints procedure as she was dissatisfied with the outcome of her stage one complaint. The resident mentioned she was unhappy with the landlord’s handling of her complaint, “the surveyor’s inspection and report/findings”, and the fact that it did not acknowledge that the repair issues to her internal windowsill were caused by works previously carried out to the external one. The landlord provided the resident with a stage two complaint acknowledgement on 6 April 2020.
  3. On 30 April 2020, the landlord emailed the resident with its first stage two complaint response that acknowledged that its above surveyor’s report was brief and lacked significant detail and that a more comprehensive analysis and explanation may have been beneficial, as well as that she had experienced further delays and frustration waiting for this. It therefore proposed to resolve this shortfall in its service with an independent window contractor’s inspection of her windowsill at its expense, together with repairs at its expense if they found that the issues with this had result from the materials or methods employed during its most recent refurbishment works.
  4. On 29 May 2020, the contractor emailed the landlord to advise that they had attended the resident’s property and “found the leak [had] already been resolved” but the resident was “not happy with the water damage to the window board” or “the silicone around it”. The contractor recommended for the window board to be “removed and re-applied”, “sanded down, filled and repainted”, “and resealed”. Furthermore, the contractor advised that the “plastered wall below the window board could do with being repainted (…) to cover water marks caused by the leak” and provided the landlord with a quotation for the works.
  5. On 3 June 2020, the resident wrote to the landlord to confirm that she was contacted by the landlord’s contractor on 27 May 2020 to arrange another inspection of the windowsill. Additionally, the resident confirmed that the inspection had already been carried out and queried whether the landlord had received the contractor’s report.
  6. On 7 July 2020, the landlord provided the resident with a second stage two final complaint response. The landlord confirmed that “an inspection of the affected area” was carried out, enclosed the associated report, advised that this reported that the damage was deemed the result of “normal wear and tear” and that it would not “contribute to the repair costs”. Additionally, the landlord apologised and offered compensation of £250 to the resident for the inconvenience caused by the amount of time that it took to investigate and reach a conclusion.
  7. As per its communication records, the landlord’s contractor re-attended the property by 3 November 2020, because the water ingress had returned there. The contractor advised that the resident had redecorated the affected area since their last inspection but, due to worsening weather, the issue had recurred.
  8. On 16 November 2020, the resident contacted this Service to complaint that she was unhappy with the landlord’s handling of her reports of repair issues to her internal windowsill. The resident advised that the landlord had acknowledged that the “external window was not sealed properly and sent someone to repair the external windowsill”. The resident expressed her dissatisfaction with the amount taken to investigate her reports, complaint handling and communication. Additionally, the resident advised she would like compensation for the costs she incurred for the repairs that she had carried out to the window.
  9. The landlord informed this Service that, on 28 January 2021, it had made an offer of £750 compensation, which the resident accepted with the condition that repair and decorative works were completed first. Subsequently, the landlord confirmed that the repair works were completed on 26 March 2021 and that it was waiting for the resident’s approval to commence decorative works.
  10. The landlord’s communication records show that its decorating contractor attended the resident’s property on 30 April 2021 to carry out the final decorative works there, however the resident was unhappy with the standard of their materials and tools. The resident contacted the landlord on 4 May 2021 to advise it of this and that she wished to instruct a decorator of her choice at its expense. The landlord agreed to this on 5 May 2021 and to cover the costs involved. Furthermore, the landlord apologised to the resident, acknowledged its shortcomings and detailed the actions that it would take in future to ensure that this type of situation did not arise again.
  11. Therefore, considering that the landlord completed the repair works, offered compensation for the inconvenience caused, attempted to carry out decorative works and, subsequently, agreed to cover the costs incurred by the resident instructing a contractor of her choice, this Service is satisfied that the landlord has now taken actions to remedy the matters raised which resolve the resident’s complaints satisfactorily.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord:
    1. Pay the resident’s decorating costs on receiving evidence of these.
    2. Pay the agreed compensation of £750 to the resident.
  2. The landlord should contact this Service within four weeks to confirm whether it has followed the above recommendations.
  3. The Ombudsman accepts that, because of the present restrictions due to the corona virus pandemic, the timing of the above actions will depend on what is reasonable in the light of Government guidance regarding the health of the resident and of the landlord’s staff.