Notting Hill Genesis (202100524)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202100524

Notting Hill Genesis

13 December 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 response to the resident’s concerns about communal repairs and maintenance of her building, including:
1. The replacement of the communal carpet.
2. Cleaning of the communal paved areas.
3. Repairs to a communal fire door, the communal lighting and uneven paving slabs on the patio area.
This complaint is also about the landlord’s record keeping.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a leaseholder of the landlord. The lease commenced in 1991. The property is a flat on the first floor of the building.
Since logging the complaint considered in this report dated 23 July 2020, the resident has logged two further complaints about the condition of the bin store area, dated 23 March 2021, and intruders using the communal area to drink, smoke, take drugs and to sleep in, dated 25 March 2021. Both of these complaints have been logged by this service under a separate case reference 202008203 and will not been considered as part of this investigation.

Summary of events

On 23 January 2020, the landlord issued a Notice of Intention to carry out Qualifying Works regarding the flooring renewal at the resident’s building. The notice invited all residents to select to have the communal flooring completed in either vinyl or carpet and advised that the consultation period would expire on 27 February 2020. Following the Notice of Intention, the landlord then issued a Notice of Estimates. the date that this was sent is not clear from the evidence provided.
On 23 July 2020, the resident logged a formal complaint with the landlord about the condition and upkeep of her building, the lack of updates from the landlord and its collection of service charges for what the resident described as ‘‘no/little service’’. The resident asked for an update on when the carpet, which was over 30 years old, would be changed saying that it was embarrassing to bring friends over anymore because of how dirty it was. The resident also asked when the front walkway could be power washed as it was very dirty.
The landlord issued its stage one response on 7 August 2020. The landlord said that it was writing to all residents of the block in response to the numerous complaints that it had received. The landlord apologised for not being able to provide as many updates as necessary, explaining that this was due to the Property Manager having taken on an extremely challenging patch with a high number of pressing issues which have demanded a lot of their attention. The landlord recognised that the service that had been provided was not as good as it should have been and that going forward it would ensure that it provides relevant updates more frequently. In its response, the landlord:
1. Said that the Notice of Intention and the Notice of Estimates regarding the carpets had been provided but acknowledged that the Section 20 process had taken longer than expected. The landlord also noted that it had met with several residents on site and that some had indicated they would like carpet and others would like vinyl. The landlord asked residents to advise what option they would like and said that all the information that was received would be reviewed.
2. Recognised that there were several maintenance and repair issues that needed to be addressed and that it would need to assign a contractor to carry out works to the paving slabs, external and internal communal lighting repairs and the repair to the fire door.
3. Said that it was aware that the overall cleaning of the block was one of the main issues at the property, that it had addressed the resident’s concerns with its contractor and that it had attended the block with two of the contractors supervisors on 7 August 2020.
On the same day, 24 August 2020, the resident emailed the landlord to say that she was not satisfied with the landlord’s stage one response and wished to escalate her complaint to stage two.
On 28 October 2020, the resident emailed the landlord to chase its stage two response. The resident confirmed that her complaint concerned, the carpet in the communal areas, the lack of cleaning of the communal paved areas, the fire door on first floor which remained jammed open, its handle having been broken for over six months, issues with lighting in the car park and communal areas and uneven paving slabs on the patio area.
On 29 October 2020, the landlord emailed the resident to apologise that her escalation request had been missed and that it would now carry out its investigation and provide the resident with a full response.
The repair to the communal lighting was completed on 11 November 2020.
The landlord issued its final response to the resident’s complaint on 16 November 2020. The landlord apologised to the resident for the delay in it issuing its response, acknowledging that the resident had requested that her complaint be escalated in August 2020, and offering her £100 compensation for its complaint handling failure. The landlord said that:
1. It had requested feedback from residents as to whether they would like carpet or vinyl, however no responses were received, and so it was now moving forward with the carpet option. That a quote had been requested and that the works would be instructed to commence as soon as possible after the quote had been received.
2. The communal paving slabs were including in its cleaning and gardening contract but this only covered sweeping and not deep cleaning of hard surfaces. That it had arranged for a jet wash of the paving slabs, which was due to take place that day. That it was looking to include an annual contribution towards jet washing the area in the budget so that it could be done on a yearly basis moving forward.
3. It apologised that it had taken so long to carry out what was a basic repair to the broken fire door and confirmed that this had now been fixed.
4. There were a significant number of communal lights which were out across the building, which it understood to be due to a tripped fuse. That most of the lights were now working apart for 12 that required fittings, the parts for which had been ordered, and that it hoped to have working as soon as possible.
5. The uneven paving slabs on the patio area had been inspected on 5 November 2020 and that it was expecting a quote shortly for the required works to be carried out.
6. Its communication had been poor and that changes within the organisation had resulted in it being particularly busy, and so items such as repairs were not getting actioned as quickly as they should be.
To apologise for its acknowledged failures, including that the communal carpet should have been replaced a long time ago, the landlord said that would cover £1,000 of the total cost of the new carpet. The landlord also said that it was currently recruiting to ensure all the Leasehold teams have additional support to work through these issues.
On 9 February 2021, the landlord emailed all the residents of the block to advise that it had put together an Action Plan based on the concerns and issues raised by residents.
On 23 March 2021, the landlord emailed all the residents of the block to provide an update in regards to its Action Plan. The landlord said that it had been advised that all the communal lights had been repaired and that it was waiting for confirmation of the set times for the communal lights, which it understood had been dealt with when the lights were repaired. With regards to the carpet, the landlord explained that the installation was delayed due to the residents wanting other choices of carpets and then a leak in the building that had to be rectified before it could go ahead. The landlord advised that the initial quote for the carpet was £7,846.80 but the new quote was now £9,097.48 due to the uplift on all carpeting materials.
The resident referred her complaint to this service on 8 April 2021.
Following its final response to the resident’s, and other residents’ complaints, the landlord arranged a residents’ meeting on 12 April 2021. During the meeting the following were discussed:
1. A provisional date of 10 May 2021 was confirmed for the installation of the carpet and that a site survey had been arranged with the contractor on 22 April 2021.
2. It was noted that there was a plan to have all the communal lights switched to LED.
3. The landlord advised that a surveyor had been requested to attend and inspect the uneven paving slabs on the patio area as the previous contractor was not able to carry out the repairs.
The landlord has confirmed to this service that the communal carpet was installed on 10 May 2021.

Assessment and findings

Relevant agreements, policies and procedures.

Under the terms of the lease, the landlord is obliged to maintain, repair, redecorate and renew the main structure of the building and common parts, for which the leasehold is obliged to pay a service charge.
The repairs policy defines emergency repairs as being where the is an immediate danger to a person’s safety or when major damage has not yet occurred, but has the potential to do so. The policy states that the landlord will aim to attend within four hours and all further work completed within 24 hours within reason. The policy goes on to define routine repairs as non-urgent work to rectify or prevent damage to, and ensure the proper working order of, the property and its fixtures and states that routine repairs will be completed within 20 working days.
The landlord’s Leasehold responsive repairs policy confirms that if the costs of the works are likely to breach the consultation threshold of £250.00 for any single leaseholder then consultation must be conducted in accordance with the provision of Section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.
The landlord has a two stage complaints process. Stage one responses should be issued within 10 days. If a response is not possible within 10 days, a written response with an action plan should be provided. Stage two responses should be issued within 20 days. Any outstanding actions are to be monitored and contact kept with resident to make sure they are carried out.

Assessment

In determining whether there has been service failure or maladministration we considered both the events that initially prompted a complaint and the landlord’s response to those events. The extent to which a landlord recognised any shortcomings and the appropriateness of any steps taken to offer redress can be as relevant as the original mistake or service failure. We may refer to a landlord’s own remedies policy and any other relevant guidance when considering whether the steps that the landlord took to resolve the complaint were reasonable.

The replacement of the communal carpet.

It is not disputed that the communal carpet was old and, as the landlord acknowledged in its final response, should have been replaced ‘‘a long time ago’’.
As the cost of replacing the carpet was likely to exceed the £250 threshold for any single leaseholder, the landlord acted appropriately by issuing a Section 20, Notice of Intention to carry out Qualifying Works, which it did on 23 January 2020. Whilst the landlord has provided a copy of its Notice of Estimates the date that this was sent is not clear from the evidence provided.
In its stage one response of 7 August 2020, the landlord explained that the Section 20 process had taken longer than expected as residents had expressed different views about whether they wanted vinyl or carpet. As there was difference of opinion it was reasonable for the landlord to again ask all the residents of the building to confirm which they would prefer.
By the time of the landlord’s stage two response, on 16 November 2020, as it had said that it had no responses it was reasonable for the landlord to move forward with the carpet option, as this would be a like for like change.
There were then further delays due to residents having different views on the style of carpet they wanted installed and a leak which had also delayed the installation.
The carpet was finally installed on 10 May 2021, 16 months after the consultation process had been initiated.
Even taking into account the time needed to complete the Section 20 consultation, the differing opinions of residents with regards to whether to replace the carpet with vinyl or carpet, the leak and then the choice of what carpet to install, 16 months was not a reasonable amount of time for the residents to wait for the carpet to be replaced.
The resident has also raised concerns about the increase in the cost of the carpet between the original quote and the landlord’s final response. However, this service will not consider the level or reasonableness of the service charge. Complaints that relate to the level, reasonableness, or liability to pay service charges are within the jurisdiction of the First-Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) and the resident would be advised to seek free and independent legal advice from the Leasehold Advisory Service (LEASE) ( https://www.lease-advice.org/ ) in relation to how to proceed with a case.

Cleaning of the communal paving areas.

In her complaint of 23 July 2020, the resident asked when the front walkway could be power washed as it was very dirty.
In its stage one response of 7 August 2020, the landlord provided the resident with a response with regards to the overall cleaning of the block, not specifically the communal paved areas. It has been noted that the stage one response was sent to all resident and covered issues raised by more than one resident. When the resident chased her escalated complaint response she confirmed that her complaint concerned the cleaning of the communal paved areas.
In its final response, on 16 November 2020, the landlord advised that the cleaning and gardening contract only covered the sweeping of hard surfaces. Nevertheless, the landlord agreed to arrange for a jet wash of the slabs to be carried out, which it confirmed would take place that day. The landlord also said that it was looking to arrange for this service to be provided on a yearly basis going forward.
This was a reasonable step for the landlord to take and evidenced that it was not only seeking to resolve the complaint but also to provide a long term solution to the issue.

Repair to the fire door, communal lighting and uneven paving slabs on the patio area.

In its stage one response on 7 August 2020, the landlord recognised that there were several maintenance and repair issues that needed to be addressed and that it would need to assign a contractor to carry out works to the fire door, communal lighting and the uneven paving slabs. The landlord has been asked to confirm the date when these repairs were first reported. To date these have not been provided.
As that is the case, this investigation will consider the landlord’s actions following the resident’s complaint, and in the case of the fire door will take the evidence from the resident that the fire door handle had been broken for over six months at the time she chased her stage two response on 28 October 2020. This was not disputed by the landlord during the complaint’s process.
The landlord advised this service that by the time of its stage one response, the fire door mechanism had been adjusted so it would shut correctly, that this took place on 28 July 2020 and the locking mechanism was then replaced on 6 September 2020. The adjustment of the door mechanism was not explained to the resident in the landlord’s stage one response of 7 August 2020.
This would mean that the fire door did not shut correctly for at a period of at least three months, between April 2020 (six months before the resident’s correspondence of 28 October) and 28 July 2020 when the fire door mechanism was adjusted. This was not a reasonable time for a fire door to be in disrepair, given the potential risk to both residents and the property of the fire door not shutting correctly.
The repairs to the communal lights were completed on 11 November 2020, three months after the landlord’s stage one response.
In its final response the landlord noted that there were 12 lights that still required fittings, the parts had been ordered and that it hoped to complete the works as soon as possible. From the evidence provided by the landlord it is unclear whether these works were completed. However, by the time of the meeting the landlord had with the residents on 12 April 2021 the issue of the communal lights appears to have moved on with the landlord noting that there was now a plan to have all the communal lights switched to LED.
With regards to the uneven paving slabs on the patio area. In its stage one response, in August 2020, the landlord said that it would need to assign a contractor to carry out the required works. However, in its final response November 2020, the landlord advised that the inspection had only been carried out on 5 November 2020 and that it was expecting a quote shortly for the required works to be carried out, three months after its stage one response.
Given that the landlord’s repairs policy states that the landlord will aim to completed routine repairs within 20 working days, the three months the resident had to wait to have the communal fire door lock and communal lights repaired and for the uneven communal slabs to only be inspected was not reasonable.

Recognition and redress offered by the landlord, and actions the landlord put in

Place, in response to the complaint.

Effective dispute resolution requires the landlord to acknowledge where something has gone wrong and to set out the actions it has already taken, or intends to take, to put things right.
Throughout the complaints process the landlord addressed all the points raised by the resident and recognised, and apologised, for the service it had provided, which it acknowledged was not as good as it should have been. Specifically the landlord apologised for its poor communication, that repairs were not getting actioned as quickly as they should be and that the communal carpets should have been replaced a long time ago.
In order to put this right, the landlord set up a detailed action place which it shared with residents in an email on 23 March 2021 and then again during a meeting with residents on 12 April 2021. This evidences that the landlord had learned from the complaint, recognised that it needed to take steps to ensure that any outstanding issues were resolved effectively and sought to repair and rebuild its relationship with residents.
The landlord also said that in recognition of its acknowledged failures it would contribute £1,000 towards the total cost of the new communal carpet and that it was currently recruiting staff to ensure that it had additional staff to work through any outstanding issues.
Having considered all the evidence I am satisfied that the acknowledgement and apology from the landlord, the steps it put in place in response to the complaint and the offer to contribute £1,000 to the cost of the communal carpet provided the resident with reasonable redress to her complaint.
In its final response, the landlord also acknowledged and apologised to the resident for the delay in it issuing its final response for which it offered the resident £100.

The landlord’s record keeping.

It is good practice for a landlord to maintain accurate, contemporaneous records on reports it receives, and its actions in response. This enables it to effectively manage any issues raised by its residents as well as fulfilling its obligations as a landlord. It cannot properly investigate and respond to complaints without accurate and comprehensive records and this could result in unfairness to the resident.
The landlord has been asked to confirm the date when the uneven paving slabs, communal light repairs (relating specifically to this complaint) and the repair to the fire door were first reported. The landlord has advised this service that these were either unavailable or had been requested from the contractor. To date these have not been provided.
It is therefore not clear whether the landlord has failed to make and keep appropriate records of its actions in response to reports of disrepair to the fire door on first floor, communal lighting in the car park and other communal areas and uneven paving slabs on the patio area or whether it does have appropriate records but has not provided them to this Service.
This represents a failure of service and a failure to comply with its obligations under the Scheme, for which the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £200.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was reasonable redress by the landlord in respect of its handling of the replacement of the communal carpet that the resident’s building.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s concerns regarding the cleaning of the communal paving areas.
In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was reasonable redress by the landlord in respect of to the resident’s reports of repairs to a communal fire door, the communal lighting and uneven paving slabs on the patio area.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its record keeping.

Reasons

The landlord apologised to the resident for the delay in replacing the carpet and acknowledged that the communal carpets should have been replaced a long time ago. The acknowledgement, apology and the compensation offered by the landlord was sufficient to provide the resident with reasonable redress for these failures.
The landlord explained to the resident that the communal paving slabs were included in its cleaning and gardening contract but nevertheless arranged for a jet wash of the paving slabs to take place. The landlord also said that, in order to address this issue in the longer term it would look to include an annual contribution towards jet washing the area in the budget so that it could be done on a yearly basis moving forward.
The landlord failed to carry out the repairs to the communal fire door, communal lighting and the to the uneven paving slabs on the patio area in accordance with the timescales set out in its repairs policy. The actions taken by the landlord following the complaint, its apology and the compensation offered by the landlord was sufficient to provide the resident with reasonable redress for these failures.
Despite several requests from this Service, for the landlord to confirm the date the repairs to the fire door, communal lighting and uneven paving slabs were first reported, these have not been provided. Had the landlord have kept better records, this may also have improved how it handled the reported problems.

Orders and Recommendations

Order

That within 28 days of the date of this determination the landlord is to pay the resident £200 for its record keeping failures.

Recommendation

That the landlord consider what learning it has taken from this report with regards to its record keeping and to write to this service to confirm what steps it will be taking to ensure improved record keeping going forward.