Notting Hill Genesis (202101616)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202101616

Notting Hill Genesis

23 March 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

The complaint is regarding:
1. The landlord’s handling of a repair to the resident’s toilet.
2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a leak coming through his bedroom window.

Background and summary of events

Background

Through the period covered by this complaint, the resident held a 5-year fixed term tenancy with the landlord, a Housing Association. The resident’s tenancy of his property, a one-bedroom flat, began in February 2017. This Service has not been advised whether the resident has now been granted a new fixed term tenancy or if he continues to occupy the property on a rolling, or periodic basis.
The landlord’s Responsive Repairs Policy gives examples of emergency repairs, which include ‘a fault which means that the only toilet in the property is not functioning’. It advises that it aims to attend emergency repairs ‘within four hours and have all major services restored within 24 hours’, while it will complete routine repairs within 20 days from the date of the first report.
The landlord operates a two-stage complaints procedure and advises that it aims to provide a response within 10 working days. It also aims to provide a further response within 10 working days if the complaint is escalated to its Review Stage. Its procedure states that if complaints are about repairs, it aims to ‘agree the actions needed, and timescales for carrying these out, if possible, within 3 working days of the local officer speaking to the customer about the complaint’.

Summary of Events

On 20 April 2021, the resident raised a complaint with the landlord regarding repairs in his property. Within his complaint, the resident stated that:
1. He had reported a water leak through his window ‘maybe 100 times’ over an almost two-year period but it had not been resolved and as a result he was now afraid of sleeping in the room in case the window broke and had moved his bed into his hallway. He had been unable to open the window for almost two years and it was now ‘full of green fungus and rubbish’.
2. He suffered from a long-term illness and had developed ‘mental problems’ due to the unresolved repair.
3. He had reported that his toilet pan was broken four weeks ago but it had still not been repaired and he was unable to use it. He stressed it was the only toilet in his property and the landlord should have raised an emergency repair but had not done so, meaning he had to go to friends’ flats to use their toilets.
4. He had also reported the lock on the toilet door was broken and he was unable to lock the door.
5. He had contacted the Local Authority’s Environmental Health Team and this Service and requested an unspecified amount of compensation for the ‘suffering’ he had been put through and for the landlord’s ‘negligence’.
Landlord records show that, on 23 April 2021, as he had no access to a toilet, it agreed to place the resident in a hotel for one week until the repair had been carried out. An appointment was given for 26 April 2021, although the landlord’s contractor then did not attend. Records show correspondence between the resident and landlord and an appointment was offered for the following day, which the resident refused. A new repair appointment was then booked for 28 April 2021, but the contractor again did not attend.
On 5 May 2021, the landlord provided its Stage One complaint response. It advised that it understood his complaint to be about: the delay in completing the toilet repair; the delay in fixing a leak which was affecting his window; the delay in fixing the window and wall which was damaged by the leak; and the stress and inconvenience that he had been caused by these delayed repairs.
Regarding the toilet repair, the landord noted that:
1. The toilet was reported as being broken on 30 March 2021 but this was incorrectly raised as a standard, rather than an emergency, repair which ‘resulted in you having to wait longer than expected’ for the repair to be completed. It apologised for this and offered £250 compensation.
2. It further noted that the repair had been scheduled for 8 April 2021 and then rescheduled for the following day, but the operative then failed to attend. The job was rebooked for 19 April 2021 but, after another non–attendance, the landlord contacted its contractor and arranged for the job to be completed that day. However, this did not happen as, after an operative left to purchase a new toilet bowl and cistern, the resident had had to go out by the time they returned.
3. The job was rebooked for 26 April 2021 but the contractor advised the landlord that they had not been given access. The landlord acknowledged that there had been ‘clear failings in the way we have communicated with you and an unacceptable number of missed appointments’. For this it offered the resident £120 compensation (£30 for each appointment which did not resolve the issue) and a further £250 for the stress and inconvenience this caused.
4. The landlord clarified that a new contractor had been found who attended on 4 May 2021 and, once they had provided the lanldord with a quote, a date to carry out the repair would be agreed.
5. The landlord confirmed that it had decanted the resident into a hotel as he remained without a working toilet and this would be extended for a further week until the repair was completed. It also acknowledged that it should have offered the resident temporary accommodation at an earlier stage as ‘it has taken a number of weeks for your toilet to be fixed’ and he ‘shouldn’t have had to live in your property for 6 weeks with no use of a toilet’. It offered the resident £250 in recognition of this service failure along with a further £364.02 which consisted of 30% of his weekly rent x 6 weeks.
Regarding the reported leak, the landlord acknowledged that the previous year, the resident had reported ‘a leak at the front of the block which is affecting your property’. It noted that:
1. ‘Four different repairs were raised to (our) contractors for the leak to be resolved’, two of which were raised in May 2020 as emergency jobs and the leak could not be identified, and another during which they were not able to gain access. The landlord confirmed that these orders had been raised incorrectly.
2. A ‘normal repair was raised for the leak from the overflow pipe’ but this was raised under the wrong address. A further roofing repair was raised on 23 June 2020 and contractors fixed gutters and downpipes at the front of the block which they believed were affecting the resident’s property. It noted it contacted the resident in October 2020 to check if the leak had recurred and whether it could arrange to attend and repair the internal damage, but it stated the resident did not respond. It apologised for not following this up.
3. Two further roofing repairs were raised in March and April 2021, but it stated these jobs ‘could not be carried out as this is not a roofing repair’. It clarified that it now understood the leak is ‘from a boiler overflow pipe at a property above yours’ and it was attempting to gain access to the property to fix the boiler. It advised it would contact the resident once this had been done and then arrange to carry out an inspection to ascertain what repair works were required in his bedroom. It offered the resident £300 compensation for the delayed repair, consisting of £50 ‘for the right to have the repair completed’ and £250 for the ‘distress and inconvenience’.
Regarding the repair to the resident’s window, the landlord:
1. Acknowledged that the resident’s bedroom had been ‘badly affected’ by the leak, which was yet to be resolved. It reiterated that it needed to complete an inspection to establish the repairs that would be required to resolve the damage caused to ‘your window and wall (due to) the water ingress’. It advised a Surveyor would attend on 11 May 2021.
2. It acknowledged that the resident had advised he had moved his bed into his hallway due to mould in his bedroom and the fact he could not open his window. It offered the resident compensation of 25% of his weekly rent multiplied by the number of weeks he had not been able to use his bedroom (which it calculated as being 78 weeks). This amounted to £3943.68.
The landlord further acknowledged the stress and inconvenience caused by the repair delays and the impact this had had on the resident’s health and wellbeing. It clarified that it had therefore offered compensation for stress and inconvenience as outlined above. It offered a further apology to the resident and acknowledged that there were delays in responding to his repair reports and contact, which in turn resulted in the repairs being delayed. It clarified that its offer of compensation amounted to £5527.70 (however, the total amount referred to appears to be £300 higher than the individual amounts offered for each element, which this Service will assume to be a typing error).
The resident’s temporary accommodation was extended for another two weeks, following further unsuccessful attempts to carry out the repair. The landlord then carried out a forced entry at the property on 20 May 2021 to complete the repair which was then post-inspected on 28 May 2021
The resident contacted the landlord on 20 May 2021 to advise that he remained unhappy with its Stage One response and wanted his complaint to be escalated. In an email, the resident reiterated his unhappiness about the delayed repairs which had left him unable to use his bedroom or his toilet for lengthy periods. He also advised that, over the ‘last 9 weeks (he had) been given more than 10 appointments’ when he had waited for contractors who did not attend. He also raised concerns over times when the temporary hotel accommodation provided by the landlord had come to an end without being automatically extended.
The resident advised that the overall situation had caused him ‘stress, anxiety and insomnia’, had caused him to miss medication due to the disturbances and had also had a negative impact on his family relationships. He stated that he ‘did not agree’ with the compensation the landlord offered and considered that £12000 was a more realistic amount, which would take into account damage caused to his ‘carpet, curtains, beddings’, three weeks’ food payments while at the hotel and travel costs for ‘every single day going to my friends home to use the toilet and come back’, along with ‘the suffering of losing my bedroom for 21 months (and) sleeping in my hallway’.
Records show that the landlord, after receiving the resident’s escalation request, completed a review of the case and how it had handled the repair issues. Following the completion of this review, it issued its Complaint Review (Stage Two) response on 18 June 2021 and acknowledged that there were ‘several repairs required at your property that were outstanding for an unacceptable amount of time, some of which still require completing’. It also acknowledged that this had ‘impacted on your enjoyment of your home’ and caused stress and inconvenience. It noted its contractors had ‘failed to address and resolve (the repair issues) in an acceptable timeframe’ and that the resident felt it had treated him unfairly.
Addressing the toilet repair, the landlord:
1. Apologised for the ‘unacceptable amount of time to restore the toilet…to full working order’. It stated that there had been a ‘failure to provide (the resident) with an acceptable level of service, meaning that you had to use the toilet facilities outside of your home for…a total period of 6 weeks’.
2. It offered the resident a revised amount of compensation, consisting of £250 for its failure to raise the job as an emergency repair, £250 for the failure to repair the toilet ‘in a timely manner’; £120 for four missed appointments (4 x £30), £364.02 for the lack of use of the bathroom (30% of his weekly rent x 6 weeks), and an additional £250 for the stress and inconvenience caused.
Regarding the delay in fixing the leak, the landlord:
1. Acknowledged that it had failed to ‘locate and rectify the leak that was affecting your property’ until May 2021, despite the resident reporting the issue as far back as May 2020. It ‘sincerely apologised’ and advised that the cause of the leak (the upstairs neighbour’s boiler) had been temporarily fixed and follow-on works had been scheduled. It again offered the resident £300 compensation for this delay.
Addressing the delay in fixing the bedroom window and wall, which had been damaged by the aforementioned leak, the landlord stated that it understood the resident had reported he was unable to use the bedroom and he had ‘incurred costs replacing bedding, curtains and other furnishings that were spoiled by mould spores’. It also noted he had advised that he moved his bed into his hallway. It apologised that ‘our failure to identify the source of the leak had this impact on you’, and acknowledged that it had again ‘failed to provide you with an acceptable level of service’. It offered the resident a revised amount of compensation, consisting of 25% of his weekly rent but this time multiplied by 84 weeks to give a total of £4247.04.
The landlord acknowledged the resident had ‘experienced a very poor service from us and this is inexcusable’, adding its ‘approach towards…the repairs…but also our negligence in supporting you through this difficult time has fallen well below what we strive to achieve’. It offered the resident a further apology.
Regarding repair issues in the resident’s bathroom which remained outstanding, the landlord advised it was appointing an alternative contractor to complete these as it noted the resident had requested the previous contactor did not re-attend to complete the works. It advised that a member of the landlord’s staff would be present during the new contractor’s initial inspection and ‘any subsequent appointments to support you and manage these through to completion’.
In conclusion, the landlord provided a breakdown of the compensation it had offered for each aspect of its identified service failure, advising that it had calculated this ‘in line with calculations used for settling legal disrepair claims’. It clarified its final offer of compensation amounted to £5781.06 and advised the resident he could contact this Service if he remained unhappy with its response.

Assessment and findings

The landlord has provided substantial information to this Service regarding its handling of the toilet repair, but it has not provided a similar level of information regarding its response to the resident’s reports of a leak outside his property, which affected his bedroom window and subsequently rendered his bedroom unusable. While this raises concern over part of the landlord’s record keeping, it is noted that the landlord has not disputed the resident’s version of events, regarding the length of time taken to complete repairs after his initial reporting of the issue, and in its complaint responses it has reasonably provided the resident with details of how it handled the issue, and the service failures it identified.

The landlord’s handling of a repair to the resident’s toilet

From the information available, the landlord identified that it had made an error when the resident first reported his toilet was broken and it failed to identify that this should have been raised as an emergency job due to the fact that this was his only toilet, as stated in its Responsive Repair Policy. This was not appropriate and immediately caused an avoidable delay. Further to this, once the order was raised and a non-emergency appointment given for 26 April 2021, the landlord’s contractor did not attend. Neither did they attend on 28 April 2021, after the appointment had been re-booked. This was not appropriate and contributed to a further avoidable delay which would have caused the resident distress and inconvenience.
However, the landlord did act appropriately when, having identified that the resident had no access to a working toilet, it offered him temporary accommodation in a local hotel while the repair was completed. While this was initially booked for a week, the landlord extended the booking when the initial appointments were missed. It is noted that there were further issues with getting an appointment booked in, some of which were avoidable due to further contractors not attending and others due to the resident not providing access. After the landlord ended up forcing entry to the property on 20 May 2021, the repair to the toilet was completed, and records show that this was post-inspected on 28 May 2021. Having completed the repair, further follow-on works were required which, at the time of the complaint, had yet to be completed.
Records show that some of the repair delay was down to the landlord being unable to gain access and it ultimately forced entry to the property to complete the repair. However, in the Ombudsman’s opinion it was positive that the landlord’s complaint responses did not seek to overstate the impact of this, and it appropriately took full responsibility for the significant delay in completing what should have been an emergency repair. It appropriately identified that it made a mistake when initially raising the repair and subsequently its contractors missed several appointments, causing further delay and inconvenience. Its response also suggested that it understood the distress the delayed repair would have caused the resident, particularly given that Eid fell during the period.
In the Ombudsman’s opinion the fact that the repair, which should have ideally been completed within 24 hours as an emergency job in line with the landlord’s repair policies, was not resolved for almost four weeks was a significant delay. However, the landlord acknowledged this and the apology and compensation it offered in its complaint response was in line with what the Ombudsman would expect to see in cases such as this. While it is noted that the resident considered the landlord’s overall offer to be insufficient and has requested almost two times as much, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, the £1234.02 compensation offered (£250 for the failure to raise an emergency job; £250 for not repairing the toilet ‘in a timely manner’; £250 for the stress and inconvenience caused; £120 for four missed appointments; and £364.02 as 30% of his weekly rent times six weeks) constituted reasonable redress. It is also noted that the landlord provided the resident with temporary accommodation along with offering money towards his food expenditure for that period.
While there was clear failure in how the landlord handled the repair, some aspects of its response were positive and its offers of compensation through its complaints procedure were appropriate and evidence that the landlord was seeking to ‘put things right’, in accordance with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a leak coming through his bedroom window

Regarding the reported leak that affected the resident’s bedroom window, the landlord, in its complaint responses and correspondence with this Service, has not disputed that there was a significant delay in resolving the issue. It also acknowledged that this delay impacted on the resident’s ability to use his bedroom and enjoy use of his home, as it noted that he advised he had to move his bed into the hallway as the subsequent damp in his bedroom impacted on his health.
In its complaint responses, the landlord acknowledged that it had received a report from the resident about a leak which affected his block in 2020 and two jobs had been raised in May of that year. However, it acknowledged that the source of the leak had not been identified on either occasion and both repairs had been raised incorrectly, including one order which was raised to the wrong address. It acknowledged that this was not appropriate. It also noted that a further repair had been successfully carried out in June 2020 to fix some guttering at the property, which at the time it believed was the source of the leak.
The landlord’s response acknowledged that it should have done more to establish whether this had fixed the issue, noting that while it did contact the resident in October 2020 to see if the problem had recurred, it did not follow this up when it received no response. It acknowledged that it should have done so and the Ombudsman agrees that the landlord therefore missed an opportunity to establish that the cause of the leak had not been correctly identified, which caused the issue to be prolonged for many more months. This was not appropriate, and the landlord failed to properly identify the cause of the leak and resolve it, causing further distress and inconvenience to the resident who, at that time, was unable to use his bedroom due to the ongoing water ingress.
There was further failure by the landlord when it incorrectly raised further repairs as roofing jobs in March and April 2021 (although this Service has not seen evidence of the reports submitted by the resident at this time), which it acknowledged in its complaint responses. Although this Service has not seen details of the landlord’s repair records, its response noted that it finally identified the cause of the leak in May 2021 and that it related to a boiler overflow pipe from the flat above.
There was a significant and unacceptable length of time between the resident reporting the issue to the landlord and the cause of the leak being identified. This avoidable delay caused the resident significant distress and inconvenience and meant that the leak affected his bedroom to the extent that it was unusable and he took to sleeping in his hallway. It was therefore appropriate that the landlord, in its complaint response, offered the resident compensation to reflect the impact that the delayed repair had had on him. However, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, while it was positive that the landlord offered the resident a significant amount of compensation, its offer should have been higher to properly reflect the impact the apparently avoidable delays had on him.
While it offered £250 for ‘distress and inconvenience’, as it had done with regards to the delayed toilet repair, it should have considered a higher award given that the length of time the resident was affected was significantly longer. The Ombudsman would have considered an award of around £500-750 for distress and inconvenience to be more appropriate, along with the £50 already offered regarding the resident’s ‘right to have the repair completed’, and an Order has been made in relation to this at the end of this report.
However, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord’s additional, revised offer, of a further £4247.04 compensation (25% of his weekly rent times 84 weeks), was appropriate and an offer which also sought to ‘put things right’ and recognise the significant disruption, inconvenience and stress the resident had been caused by the errors the landlord had identified in its handling of the repair. The offer was in line with what the Ombudsman would expect to see in similar circumstances and, along with the sincere apology expressed, was appropriate redress.
It was also positive that the landlord carried out a comprehensive review of the case during its complaints procedure, appropriately progressed the complaint through the respective stages and its responses at Stage One and Stage Two indicated it had sought to take the concerns raised by the resident seriously and took responsibility for the poor service he had received.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with Paragraph 55 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress offered by the landlord regarding its handling of a repair to the resident’s toilet.
In accordance with Paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure regarding the landlord’s response to reports of a leak coming through his bedroom window.

Reasons

There was an unacceptable and avoidable delay by the landlord regarding how it handled the repair to the resident’s toilet. While it did raise a job promptly, it made a mistake in raising the job as a non-emergency and initially failed to identify that the resident was therefore left without access to a working toilet. While it acted reasonably in providing temporary accommodation once it realised its error, there were further delays, often caused by contractors failing to attend the resident’s property as agreed. It therefore took almost four weeks to complete what should have been a 24-hour emergency repair.
However, the landlord’s complaint responses showed that it took full responsibility for the delay and identified the errors it had made. It recognised the disruption and inconvenience that the resident had been caused and it sought to ‘put things right’ for the resident via an appropriate offer of an apology and an award of compensation that constituted reasonable redress.
Regarding its response to the resident’s reports of a leak affecting his bedroom window, there was an even more serious delay in resolving this issue, which was unacceptable and had a significant impact on the resident’s right to enjoy his property, leading to him moving his bed into his hallway as the bedroom was not usable. While the landlord’s complaint responses again acknowledged its failings and how they would have affected the resident, and it appropriately offered an apology and a further offer of compensation for distress and inconvenience suffered, its offer fell short of what the Ombudsman would expect to see. This is because its offer for ‘distress and inconvenience’ did not adequately reflect the cumulative failings and resulting impact of its repair failings and the impact these had on the resident. The remainder of the landlord’s compensation offer, reflecting the loss of his bedroom for a significant period, was reasonable.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord should, within four weeks of the date of this letter, pay the resident compensation of £6281.06, consisting of:
1. The £1234.02 originally offered relating to the toilet repair.
2. A revised offer of £750 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the delay in responding to his reports of a leak.
3. The £50 originally offered for his right to repair.
4. The £4247.04 originally offered for 25% of his weekly rent for 84 weeks.
The landlord should provide this Service of evidence of compliance with the above Order within four weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

The landlord should share the learning from this case, including both the findings from this investigation and its own case review carried out during its handing to the original complaint, with its Repair Team managers.