Notting Hill Genesis (202014860)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202014860

Notting Hill Genesis

25 November 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

This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for his carpet to be replaced following leaks into his property.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is an assured shorthold tenant and the tenancy started on 18 December 2018. The property is a one-bedroom flat on the sixth floor of a new build block.
The tenancy agreement obliges the landlord to:
1. ‘Keep in good repair the structure and exterior of the premises including drains, gutters and external pipes.
2. to make good any damage to the interior of the premises or possessions of the tenant…from the carrying out of any work of its staff or a contractor engaged by the landlord.’
The landlord’s repairs policy has three categories of repair – emergency, routine and emergency defects. Emergency repairs are to be completed within four hours and routine repairs are to be completed within 20 working days from the date of the report. In addition, the policy says that residents are responsible for insuring their own contents.
The landlord has a compensation and good will gesture policy that sets out the circumstances in which payment will be made. It has a section that outlines the circumstances that are excluded under the policy and explains that ‘if there is damage and you believe that we or a contractor working on our behalf, are at fault, in these cases, a liability claim can be made where negligence will need to be evidenced’.
The landlord’s website has information available for its residents on the treatment of condensation and mould. The web page provides advice to residents on the cause and symptoms of condensation. A video is made available demonstrating a mould wash and the importance of ventilation within a property.
The landlord operates a two stage complaints procedure with complaint responses sent within ten working days at the first stage of the procedure and within 20 working days at the final stage of the complaints procedure.
As context to the current investigation, the Ombudsman notes that on 29 January 2020, there was a leak from the bath/tiling area from an upstairs property into the resident’s flat. The landlord resolved the leak on 28 February 2020. The resident submitted a complaint about the delays in resolving the leak on 15 July 2020 and requested the replacement of the damaged carpet to his bedroom. The landlord complaint response on 18 September 2020 identified service failures and agreed to pay the requested compensation of £250 which was accepted by the resident.

Summary of Events

On 17 February 2021, the landlord’s repair records show that a new leak in the hallway was attended to by the out of hours contractors. The completion notes from the out of hours contractors advise that on arrival at the property the leak had stopped, the carpet was wet but there was no obvious sign of a leak.
The resident emailed the landlord on 17 February 2021 advising:
1. the plumber had explained the cause of the leak could be attributed to the work that was previously carried out and that similar occurrences would occur in the future due to the design of the building
2. the carpet was damaged again so despite it being professionally cleaned following the last leak, the smell of human waste still lingered and the area of damage was wider
3. he believed the current leak was related to the previous leak so the landlord had not dealt with the problem effectively
4. he requested the replacement of his bedroom carpet as this was the second time in 12 months he had to go through this experience and he found this ‘physically draining, mentally exhausting and hygienically challenging’
5. he requested a move to another one-bedroom flat as he had been advised that the problem was likely to reoccur.
The landlord communicated with the resident on 18 February 2021 when it:
1. confirmed receipt for the pictures that the resident had provided
2. requested information about the leak into the living room so it could take steps to investigate
3. advised that the landlord would not usually replace the resident’s carpet as it expected this to be covered by the resident’s home contents insurance
4. explained that the compensation procedure did not allow for it to compensate for the replacement of a resident’s possessions, including carpets, unless there was a delay with the landlord meeting its published repair timeframes
5. offered the resident to provide details to it of any delay which would then be passed to a manager for review.
The landlord provided a record of its communication with its contractor on 18 February 2021 when the contractor advised it that there was a leak originating from the hallway of the resident’s flat into another property. The landlord responded that day (18 February 2021) to the contractor advising that the leak from the stack pipe had reoccurred and a plumber had attended the previous night to rectify it and was able to stop the leak.
The landlord’s repair completion records for 18 February 2021 show that the contractor recorded the soil pipe had pulled apart and access was obtained to the plasterboard wall to carry out the repair. It recommended follow on works to repair the wall and to fit an access panel.
The resident submitted a complaint on 18 February 2021 requesting:
1. a move to another property
2. the bedroom carpet to be replaced and for the landlord to accept responsibility for the leaks and damage caused following its slow response to the leak
3. plastic flooring to be repaired/replaced
4. copies of the reports from the contractors attending his home.
The landlord responded to the resident’s earlier email of 18 February 2021 on 19 February 2021, it acknowledged that the resident was unhappy with the previous response and confirmed the previous advice it would not replace the carpet. The landlord requested further information to establish if there was any current water ingress and advised it would aim to supply the contractor reports by 24 February 2021.
The resident’s MP wrote to the landlord on 19 February 2021 advising:
1. there was a leak into the residents’ property from a stack pipe in January 2020 and the resident’s carpet was damaged. The resident’s carpet was not replaced, a compensation payment of £250 was made so the carpet could be professionally cleaned
2. in February 2021, a similar further leak occurred in the flat hallway, the carpet was damaged again.
3. the plumber who attended the resident’s home had advised that the cause of the leak was ‘due to poor maintenance work and the maintenance team caused further damage while carrying out the repairs’ and that ‘there were serious underlying structural issues’ and ‘more leaks were very likely to occur in the near future’
4. the resident’s requests to be rehoused permanently or temporarily and for the bedroom carpet and plastic floor to be replaced had been rejected and the landlord had refused to accept responsibility or liability for the damage.
The resident communicated with the landlord on 20 February 2021 to advise of his concerns as there was fungus growing on his bedroom wall, and delays in their communication with him. The landlord responded on 22 February 2021 that it had arranged for a plumber to investigate the patches on his living room ceiling and the pictures he had provided of the damp had been referred to the surveying team for them to advise on the next steps.
The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint on 2 March 2021. It concluded with:
1. an apology for the inconvenience experienced by the resident
2. it could not agree to the resident’s request to be moved due to the leaks into his property but explained that the resident could apply for a transfer using the Choice Based Lettings Scheme or consider a mutual exchange or the home swap scheme
3. the replacement of the resident’s carpet should be covered by his home contents insurance policy as it is a personal possession and he needed to have his own insurance to protect his possessions
4. the compensation procedure did not allow the landlord to compensate for the replacement of tenants’ possessions such as carpets
5. its insurance did not provide cover for the resident’s belongings as the landlord did not insure these on his behalf
6. the repair had been dealt with within the repair timeframes as the leak was reported on 14 February 2021 and the repair raised on 15 February 2021 so there had been no delay in ordering the repairs
7. photos of the plastic flooring had been requested but not received and, on receipt, a decision would be made separately
8. reports from the contractors were attached to the response.
The landlord responded to the MP communication on 8 March 2021, advising
1. that the leak that occurred in the residents flat in January 2020 was dealt with as a formal complaint with compensation of £250 paid
2. in line with its policies and procedures, it would not be responsible for repairing or replacing damaged personal items such as floor coverings
3. the leak that occurred on 12 February 2021 originated from the stack pipe in the hallway of the property, had been repaired and the remedial works to the affected walls and ceiling were in progress
4. the requested reports from the operative were supplied to the resident on 2 March 2021 with the complaint response and it disputed that the operative had said ‘that there were serious underlying structural issues with my flat and that more leaks were very likely to occur in the near future’.
The MP wrote again to the landlord on 24 March 2021 on the resident’s behalf highlighting the residents’ dissatisfaction with the previous response as the resident maintained the landlords previous response contained accuracies and that the landlord had acted inconsistently when applying their insurance policy.
The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint at the final stage of the complaint procedure on 30 March 2021. The complaint response concluded:
1. in January 2020, there was a leak from the flat above, caused by tiling/grouting which resulted in damage to the resident’s carpet and the landlord had offered £250 compensation for the service failure
2. in February 2021, the out of hours service received a report of a leak from the soil pipe with the necessary works actioned within the required time limits
3. the decision not to decant the resident while the works were being carried out was correct as the property was habitable and prompt action was taken to rectify the repairs
4. a surveyor had carried out a full inspection and concluded that the cause of the leaks were isolated situations and not because of an underlying problem as indicated by visiting contractors (and the landlord would supply the information requested by the resident)
5. the property above the resident’s had their carpet changed by the developer as part of the defects work and the damage to their property was more severe than that to the resident’s
6. the landlord expected residents to insure their contents to cover them for any losses and, although it offered to deep clean the resident’s carpet and reduce as much as possible any marks or stains to it, it could not agree to change the carpet
7. the landlord agreed for a contractor to remove the paint stains, clean and secure the vinyl flooring to prevent any trip hazards, carry out a mould wash to curb mould growth and repaint one wall
8. the landlord also agreed for the same operative to carry out a ‘walk through’ of the resident’s property to check there were no other leaks and carry out a basic check in the kitchen, bathroom and toilet
9. it apologised for the inconvenience and anxiety experienced by the resident and provided reassurance that it was committed to rectifying the issues in a timely manner
The landlord responded to the MP communication on 14 April 2021, reiterating the information provided on the 8 March 2021 and added that:
1. it was not responsible for the repair or replacement of the damaged personal items and this should be covered by the resident’s home contents insurance policy
2. the neighbour’s carpet was replaced by the developer as the damage to the carpet was caused by a building defect
3. reports were supplied to the resident on 2 March 2021 with the final response to his complaint but the resident advised he was dissatisfied with the quality of the reports so full reports were being prepared which would be shared as soon as practicable
4. it apologised for the verbal information provided to the resident by the operative while working in his home as this was incorrect and misleading so was being addressed through the contract management team
5. as the leak had been repaired, a transfer could not be agreed on that basis but the resident could use the Choice Based Lettings system to bid for another property or use the mutual exchange process and home swap options if he wished to move to another property.
The resident advised this Service that he remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and wished for replacement of his carpet, removal of mould growth, assurance that there would be no more leaks and a partial reimbursement of his rent liability given he had suffered a deterioration in his health. He did not believe his landlord had taken his concerns seriously
The landlord offered on 27 August 2021 as part of the Ombudsman early resolution scheme to investigate the residents’ concerns, repair the leak, and accepted that in their complaint responses they had not provided the resident with advice on how to make a liability claim on their insurance for the damage caused to the carpet. They agreed to pay £100 for the oversight and offered a good will gesture of £500 towards replacing his carpet.

Assessment and findings

In reaching a decision we consider whether the landlord has kept to the law, followed proper procedure and good practice, and acted in a reasonable way. Our duty is to determine complaints by reference to what is, in this Service’s opinion, fair in all the circumstances of the case.
The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles are:

• Be fair

• Put things right

• Learn from outcomes

This Service will apply these principles when considering whether any redress is appropriate and proportionate for any maladministration or service failure identified.
There are aspects of the resident’s concerns that relate to the impact of his living conditions on his health. While this matter will have been a source of distress for him given he had experienced two leaks into his property and believed there was a likelihood of reoccurrence, it is not the role of the Ombudsman to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This would usually be dealt with as a personal injury claim through the courts. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the complaint may have caused the resident.
The landlord’s out of hours contractors attended in response to the leak in February 2021 and reported to the landlord what it had found, and the actions taken. The repair reports from the out of hours contractor show that the initial repair resolved the leak into the resident home, which demonstrates the landlord acted within a reasonable timescale to the reported leak.
Following the statement from the contractor, the resident expressed his concerns that the leaks which caused damage to his property are linked. While the resident concerns are understandable, the landlords’ timely communication with the resident reasonably sought to reassure the resident. The landlord apologised for the experience, provided clarity on the cause of the leaks and advised that the two leaks he had experienced were not related. In addition, the landlord appropriately apologised for the misinformation supplied by the contractor.
The landlord accepts that the leaks into the property caused damage to the resident’s carpet. Its compensation policy states that if a resident suggests that damage has been caused by the landlord or the actions of its contractors, the matter should be referred to its insurers for a liability claim to be made. Although it signposted the resident to make a claim on his contents insurance, the landlord failed to make him aware of the potential of a liability claim or refer the claim pro-actively to its insurers. It repeated this failure when it responded to the resident’s complaints in March 2021 and similarly missed opportunities to advise the resident correctly in its responses to the MP enquiries.
As a result when making its decision, the landlord did not have regard to its compensation policy in considering the residents request to replace his carpet.
The resident informed the landlord that there was mould in his property in February 2021. In response, the landlord acted appropriately in obtaining advice from a surveyor, in its final response it agreed to carry out a mould wash, to paint one wall and for further investigations to take place into the concerns raised.
During the mediation process, the landlord accepted it had not considered signposting the resident to its insurers when it decided that the carpet could not be replaced. On recognising its service failing that the complaint responses did not provide the required advice it offered compensation of £100 and a good will gesture of £500.00 towards the replacement of the carpet. This amount is in line with the range recommended by the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance as appropriate for ‘service failure which had an impact on the complainant but was of short duration and may not have significantly affected the overall outcome for the complainant’. This level of compensation, in combination with the apologies was therefore proportionate given the circumstances of the case and in accordance with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 55 (c) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of reasonable redress following the Ombudsman’s intervention which, in the Ombudsman opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

Reasons

The landlord has acknowledged there was a service failure in its handling of its communication with the resident when he requested the replacement of his carpet. The landlord has apologised for the service failures and its increased compensation offer of £600 was fair given the circumstances of the case

Recommendations

The landlord to reoffer the compensation amount of £600.00 to the resident and let this service know once it has done this.
The landlord to complete the mould wash that it mentioned in its final stage response in March 2021, if it has not already do so.
The landlord should advise this Service of its intentions in regard to these recommendations within four weeks of the date of this report this report.