Notting Hill Genesis (202013052)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202013052

Notting Hill Genesis

6 January 2022


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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s report of a broken door.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord’s property. The property is a one-bedroom, ground floor flat. The resident has informed the Ombudsman that he suffers from a number of health conditions, of which the landlord is aware.
  2. At the beginning of February 2021, the resident contacted the Ombudsman to raise concerns about the landlord’s handling of repairs at the property amongst other issues. The resident advised that of particular concern was that his front door had still to be repaired following an antisocial behaviour (ASB) incident that took place in 2019.
  3. We subsequently contacted the landlord and asked it to investigate the resident’s concerns through its formal complaints procedure. On 1 February, the landlord advised that it did not have an open complaint for the resident; however, it had referred the matter to the resident’s housing officer for further investigation.
  4. The landlord subsequently contacted the resident via email on 3 February 2021, and confirmed the scope of the complaint. The landlord sought further information about the door repair and queried whether the resident was able to provide photographs of the damage. It is not clear from the evidence provided to the Ombudsman if the resident responded to this email. However, it is noted that the landlord chased a response on 12 February 2021.
  5. A stage one response to the complaint was issued on 15 February. Within this, the landlord responded to concerns that the resident had raised about his gas safety check, discrimination on behalf of landlord staff and the door repair. In relation to the door repair, the landlord said that it had checked its system and could not find evidence of a report being made in relation to the front door. It added that if the resident was able to provide a description of the repair – or photographs – it could log the repair and arrange for repairs to be carried out.
  6. A job was raised on 22 February. The entry in the landlord’s repair records reads that the resident had advised that the door to the property was “hanging on one set of hinges”, and that the door frame was “crumbling”. A job was scheduled for 15 March 2021, between midday and 6pm.
  7. Meanwhile, the resident informed the Ombudsman that he was unhappy with the stage one response on the basis that it had taken a long time to carry out the repairs to the door and this had not been addressed by the landlord. We communicated this to the landlord and it agreed to escalate the complaint accordingly.
  8. The resident subsequently chased the repair on 17 March, and the landlord made enquiries with its contractor to see whether the appointment had been kept. In response, the contractor advised that no access was provided. The contractor added that the resident had informed them that he was self-isolating and he did not wish to be in contact with others. It was added that the resident had advised that he preferred morning appointments, and to be notified one or two days in advance of the appointment.
  9. The landlord issued its stage two response to the complaint on 23 March. Within this, it said:
    1. The resident’s housing officer had investigated the door repair and was unable to find any evidence of it being previously logged.
    2. A repair was raised on 22 February, with the job scheduled for 15 March.
    3. Its contractor had reported back that while it had attended, the resident was self-isolating and did not wish to come into contact with others. As such, it had been unable to complete the repair.
    4. The resident should contact his housing officer to confirm whether he would like for the job to be rearranged, or if he preferred to wait until he was out of isolation. However, if the door was not secure, then the resident would need to arrange for this to be done as soon as possible.
    5. While it noted the resident’s concerns about Covid-19, it wished to reassure him that its contractors were adhering to Government protocol, and would maintain social distancing when carrying out the works.
    6. The repair had been raised for the first time as a complaint; and as a result, it would not be upholding the complaint as there had not been any service failure.
    7. If the resident remained dissatisfied with the response he had received, he could refer the matter to the Ombudsman for investigation.
  10. In April, the resident confirmed that he was dissatisfied with the landlord’s consideration of his complaint and wished for the Ombudsman to investigate the matter.
  11. The resident sought an update in relation to the door repair on 8 June, and the landlord advised that it would chase the matter with its contractor. It is not clear what transpired after this; however, the evidence suggests that the landlord offered the resident a full-day appointment for the repair, but this was declined by the resident owing to the associated waiting time. A half-day appointment for 8 July, was subsequently accepted by the resident.
  12. There is an absence of information about what transpired next; however, the landlord confirmed to the Ombudsman that the door repair was completed on 5 August.

The landlord’s obligations

  1. Under the tenancy agreement, the landlord is obliged to “keep in good repair, the structure and exterior of the premises… this includes – outside walls, outside doors… internal walls, skirting boards, doors and door frames, hinges, locks door jambs, thresholds, letter boxes, door handles, floors and ceiling, but not including painting and decorating”.
  2. The landlord’s Responsive Repairs Policy (the policy) states – “as part of our digital offering, residents will be able to report repairs via email, our website or their Workwise account where applicable. During normal office hours repairs can be reported via telephone by either calling the Customer Service Centre or assigned Local Officer. If the repair is an emergency, residents will always be able to call a 24/7 emergency repair line.”
  3. The policy also sets out the repair timeframes. These contain two categories – emergency repair and routine repair. The policy states that the landlord will aim to attend emergency repairs within four hours and have all major service restored within 24 hours. All further work also completed within 24 hours within reason. Routine repairs should be completed within 20 working days from the date of the report.

 

Assessment and findings 

  1. In communication with the Ombudsman, the resident has advised that following an altercation with his neighbour in 2019, the door to his property was broken – and the plasterwork to the wall behind the door was also damaged. The resident has advised that while the plasterwork was repaired soon after the incident, the landlord delayed in carrying out repairs to the door itself.
  2. When the landlord responded to the resident’s complaint, it advised that it did not have any record of the door repair being reported previously. The landlord has provided the Ombudsman with a copy of its repair records from 1 January 2020 onwards.
  3. The first entry in relation to the door is in February 2021, after the Ombudsman made enquiries with the landlord about the resident’s complaint. As detailed above, a job was initially scheduled for 15 March 2021; however, this did not go ahead. The next entry in the landlord’s records is dated 8 June 2021, and reads “tenant says that someone attended to measure his front door up (wooden) for repair”. The record continues “there is no outstanding on WW or Plentific (only a very old job back in 2019)”. The notes continue by detailing that the resident had informed landlord staff that he did not wish for a new job to be raised, but for the named operative to attend as he was aware of what needed to be done to complete the repair.”
  4. Given the detail of the 8 June 2021 entry, it is not clear why the landlord’s complaint response advised that there was no record of a job relating to the door having been raised. In the circumstances, it would have been reasonable to review the job in 2019 at the time of the complaint, and to try to establish if this was the same repair which the resident had complained about. The Ombudsman has not been provided with the repair records for the relevant period; however, the other evidence suggests that a door repair had been raised in 2019.
  5. In addition, the Ombudsman has been in receipt of evidence relating to the resident’s ASB complaint. This contains emails from the resident to landlord staff on 10 December 2019 and 10 February 2020. Within these emails, the resident had described the altercation with his neighbour and that the front door had been damaged as a result.
  6. While it is acknowledged that this is not evidence of disrepair being reported to a repairs or customer contact team, the Ombudsman is satisfied that there is sufficient evidence to show that the landlord had been put on notice about the disrepair. In the circumstances, it would have been reasonable for the staff who received those emails to either direct the resident to its repairs team, or to notify the team of potential disrepair.
  7. From the evidence that is available, it is not clear what transpired in 2019 or what information is contained in the landlord’s record in relation to that job. However, the resident had clearly communicated that his door had been damaged by his neighbour and it would have been appropriate for the landlord to undertake further investigations in 2019 and 2020 – following receipt of the resident’s emails – to determine whether any repairs were required. That the landlord did not take such action was a failing in the circumstances, and a missed opportunity to complete the repair.
  8. As detailed above, it is not clear why the landlord advised that it had no record of the damaged door being reported prior to February 2021. The evidence suggests that the resident had communicated the repair, and that the landlord had indeed logged some detail in relation to it in 2019. As such, that the landlord did not identify this when investigating the resident’s complaint was a failing. In the circumstances, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to investigate the 2019 entry further and consider whether it was necessary to compensate the resident for the inconvenience caused by the delay in completing the repair.
  9. From the evidence that has been provided to the Ombudsman, there is nothing which suggests that the resident chased the repair between February 2020 and February 2021; however, it is noted that the resident was pursuing a complaint in relation to the ASB, and his concerns about the heating within his property and that this took priority for him at the time.
  10. After the landlord raised the job in February 2021, it appropriately scheduled a repair for 15 March 2021. The resident’s concerns about Covid-19, and reasons for not wishing to provide access at the time are understood. However, it is not clear why no further action was taken in relation to the repair until June. There was also a further delay between the repair being chased in June and it subsequently being completed in August. The landlord has not provided an explanation as to why the repair could not be completed sooner. The evidence suggests that there was some discussion about the availability of appointments, and whether they were convenient for the resident. However, this information is lacking in detail and the landlord has not demonstrated that the delays were unavoidable.
  11. Therefore, from the evidence provided to the Ombudsman, the landlord failed to carry out the repair in line with its policy, and unduly delayed in completing the repair between March and August 2021. While it is acknowledged that the repair was completed after the landlord’s stage two response to the complaint was issued, given the delay in 2021 alone, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to consider whether the resident was due any compensation once the repair was complete.

 

 

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s report of a broken door.

Reasons

  1. When the landlord investigated the resident’s complaint in 2021, it advised that it had not received previous reports of the door being broken. However, the evidence provided to the Ombudsman suggests that a job had been raised in 2019. It is not clear why the landlord failed to investigate this further when considering the resident’s complaint. Furthermore, emails from the resident to landlord staff in December 2019 and February 2020 detailed that his neighbour had damaged his door during an ASB altercation.
  2. After the repair was raised in February 2021, there was some difficulty in scheduling a mutually convenient appointment. However, the repair was completed six months after it was raised, and the landlord has not demonstrated that this delay was outside of its control. Given the departure from the service standards detailed in the landlord’s repairs policy, it would be appropriate for the landlord to compensate the resident for the inconvenience he was caused by the delay in completing the repair.

Orders

  1. Within four weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord should:
    1. Apologise to the resident for the failings identified by this investigation.
    2. Pay the resident a total of £350 comprised of:
      1. £200 for the inconvenience caused by failing to respond to the repair in 2019.
      2. £100 for the inconvenience caused by the delay in completing the repair in 2021.
      3. £50 for the inconvenience caused by failing to investigate the door repair further in 2021 when considering the resident’s complaint.