Notting Hill Genesis (202106285)
REPORT
COMPLAINT 202106285
Notting Hill Genesis
26 October 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 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 handling of the resident’s:
- Request for repairs and improvements to her bathroom.
- Request for a kitchen upgrade.
- Request for a new boiler.
- Reports of repairs required to and request for a new front door.
- Request for repairs to address cracks in her property.
- Reports of repairs to her extractor fan and intercom.
Background and summary of events
1. The resident became an assured tenant of the landlord’s property, which is a flat, on 14 September 2020. The resident is reported to have various health issues. Her family member lived with the previous tenant, who exchanged their tenancy with the resident via mutual exchange. The resident’s family member continued to live in the property with the resident after the mutual exchange and liaises with the landlord on the resident’s behalf. The resident and her family member are both referred to as “the resident” in this report for ease of reference.
2. The landlord has confirmed that works to cracks to the property were originally agreed with the previous tenant but were delayed due to corona virus restrictions and the tenants shielding.
3. On 12 October 2020, the landlord internally corresponded and explained that, prior to the lockdown due to the corona virus, it had agreed to complete several works, including to cracks to the property and to the kitchen cupboards’ missing doors, with the resident. Due to corona virus restrictions they were delayed, and the resident was now pursuing the works.
4. On 26 November 2020, the landlord inspected the property. A provisional date of 12 January 2021 was given to start works to the cracks. The resident later asked for this to be postponed in view of corona virus restrictions implemented in December 2020.
5. The landlord internally advised, on 10 March 2021, that the resident was ready for the works to be scheduled.
6. On 22 March 2021, the landlord internally pursued an update on the scheduled kitchen renovation for the resident, which it believed that a previous employee had raised, who had pursued an update.
7. The landlord raised a repair order on 23 March 2021 for a faulty extractor fan at the property.
8. On 25 March 2021 the landlord internally advised that it was due to start works to the property’s cracks on 29 March 2021. However, due to health issues, the resident said she could not have anyone in her home for three weeks.
9. The landlord internally enquired on 30 March 2021 about the possibility of the property’s boiler being upgraded, noting that the resident had said that this was 15 years old and frequently broke down. The landlord also raised a repair for the property’s intercom.
10. On 31 March 2021 the landlord’s contractor attended the property in relation to the extractor fan there and reported that this was left in working order. However, the landlord liaised with its contractor about the extractor fan on 1 April 2021, as it had noted on that date that the resident had said that this had still had issues because the fan shut off intermittently.
11. The resident emailed a stage one complaint to the landlord on 2 April 2021:
- Requesting that the landlord supply the labour to install tiles and a basin that she had bought for the property’s bathroom.
- Regarding the length of time for the kitchen refurbishment to be authorised.
- Regarding the length of time for works to be completed to cracks around the property.
- Requesting that the front door, boiler, and intercom were replaced. The resident said this had previously been agreed by the landlord. She said that her front door was cracked and that her neighbour’s front door had been replaced, despite this not being that old.
12. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage one complaint on 6 April 2021.
13. The landlord’s contractor attended the property on 9 April 2021 for the intercom repair, however the resident did not provide them access for this because she was not notified of the appointment. The landlord noted that the contractor reported that the intercom functioned from the outside, as they were able to speak to the resident while using this. However, the resident reported that the intercom was faulty from inside the property, and so the landlord re-raised the repair.
14. On 13 April 2021, the landlord asked its contractor to re–attend the property to fix or replace the extractor fan. On the same day it liaised with its fire safety department, which confirmed there were no plans to replace the resident’s front door at this time. It raised a repair for a “loose door frame”, and it recorded an appointment date of 6 May 2021 for this. The landlord also corresponded internally regarding the property’s boiler and any previous repairs.
15. The landlord sent its stage one complaint response to the resident on 16 April 2021. In this, it said that the supply of labour to install items such as the tiles and basin that the resident had bought did not comply with its improvements policy and, if the resident wished to make improvements, she must do so in compliance with this policy. Otherwise, the resident should raise the repair with the landlord. The landlord confirmed that it had offered to raise repairs to the property’s bathroom and it reiterated this offer to her. It said that the resident’s request for shower upgrade was subject to receiving an occupational health report recommending this, and that the screenshots of doctor’s letters provided by the resident were not sufficient to implement the upgrade.
16. The landlord confirmed that it had referred the resident’s property for inclusion on its 2022–23 kitchen renewal programme, which would start in April 2022 and run through to March 2023. It confirmed that its contractor would notify the resident when works would be carried out for this.
17. The landlord also confirmed that its contractor had contacted the resident with the intention to begin works around the property to address the cracks there on 29 March 2021, but that these were put on hold on the resident’s request. The landlord confirmed its contractor was awaiting the resident’s confirmation and arrangement of their attendance for this.
18. The landlord confirmed that it had raised a repair to the property’s kitchen extractor fan on 23 March 2021 and that this had been attended on 30 March 2021, when the contractor reported leaving the extractor fan in working order. The landlord confirmed that the resident disputed this, reporting that the fan only worked intermittently. The contractor said that the fan was not meant to be on continuously and that this would “cut out” intermittently, based on the moisture within the room. However, because the resident disputed this and said that the fan would cut off immediately upon turning on, the landlord confirmed that it had asked its contractor to re-attend to fix or replace the fan.
19. The landlord additionally confirmed that an engineer had attended the property’s boiler on three occasions since the resident’s tenancy started, on 1 November 2020 in relation to a breakdown when they ordered parts, on 4 November 2020 to fit the parts, and on 15 February 2021 in relation to a breakdown and when a “TRV” was fitted to one radiator. The landlord said that the list of its properties due for boiler upgrades was yet to be agreed, but at that time there were no immediate plans to replace the resident’s boiler. It advised that the age of the boiler was around ten years, based on the approximation of the boiler servicing contractor.
21. The resident asked to escalate her complaint to the final stage of the landlord’s complaints procedure on 19 April 2021, and she said that:
- She was previously informed that the property’s boiler was 20 years old, and that a surveyor who had attended this the year before had recommended that the boiler was replaced but had said that this was up to the landlord.
- Broken tiles in the property’s shower caused leaks, and that she was previously advised that, if she supplied tiles, the landlord would fit them. She said that she was told the same about her leaking basin and she asked for compensation for being unable to use the shower or basin. Additionally, the resident said that she was not requesting a shower upgrade, but a bidet shower next to the toilet. She said that this was present in the property previously, installed by the landlord, but that it had removed this several years prior.
- Her cooker was broken, and that she did not purchase a new one because she was informed the year prior that the property’s kitchen would be replaced. Therefore, the resident said that she should be on the kitchen renewal list for that year, and not for 2022. She also said that she had no kitchen cupboards.
- She knew how the property’s extractor fan worked, but that this did not get rid of moisture and, during a previous inspection, she was told that this would be replaced. The property’s intercom did not work, and that this would be identified by a new contractor.
22. The landlord raised works on 23 April 2021 to repair or replace the extractor fan and to repair the intercom entry phone to the property. The landlord internally advised on 29 April 2021 that the resident was unavailable to have anybody carry out works there until after 19 May 2021.
23. In the landlord’s final stage complaint response, dated 18 May 2021, it confirmed that it had discussed the complaint with the resident via telephone on 11 May 2021. It explained that, generally, in mutual exchanges the incoming resident accepted the property in the condition that this was in at the time of the exchange.
24. The landlord was unable to locate any repairs raised to the property’s basin and shower tiles, or communications regarding the resident’s proposed way to resolve these repairs. The landlord advised that its policies did not, and had not previously, allowed it to carry out repairs where the resident would provide material for the work. It reiterated that it would arrange for the work to be carried out under its repairs policy, or that the resident could arrange this under the improvements policy. The landlord confirmed that it had raised the replacement of the tiles and the wash hand basin as a repair to be completed as soon as possible.
25. The landlord confirmed that it had inspected the property’s kitchen in November 2020 and previously advised the resident that the surveyor had referred the kitchen for replacement, and that this was to be in the current year. Since then, the kitchen was placed in the plan for the year 2022-23. The landlord apologised if this was disappointing and advised that, given the timescales, the kitchen’s condition and the resident’s health, it had asked its assets team to consider bringing forward the replacement of the kitchen. It confirmed that it would advise the resident once it had heard further information about this. The landlord said that, if there were any repairs required in the kitchen in the meantime, these could be reported to it by her.
26. The landlord said that the works to cracks in the property were arranged with the previous tenant to start in March 2020, however the corona virus pandemic restrictions did not allow it to complete them. Following the resident’s mutual exchange to the property, a surveyor’s inspection took place there on 26 November 2020. Works to the property’s cracks were then originally due to begin again in January 2021, however, due to another corona virus lockdown, these were delayed further. They were scheduled to begin once more on 19 May 2021. The landlord confirmed that the delays caused by the impact of Covid-19 restrictions were outside of its control, but that the works to the cracks in the property had been re-inspected and re-scheduled, following the start of the resident’s tenancy, as soon as possible given the unforeseeable circumstances.
27. The landlord confirmed that there were no current reports of the property’s boiler requiring a repair and that, although a contractor may have advised the resident that a new boiler may be beneficial, it was not its practice to replace a functioning boiler which could be repaired. It explained that it replaced boilers when it was no longer possible to repair them, not according to their age, and that there were no current plans to replace hers.
28. The landlord noted that the resident had advised that the property’s front door was cracked, and that she was promised a new front door by a previous employee. It also said that the resident had stated that her neighbour’s front door was changed. The landlord was unable to locate records regarding any promise to change the property’s front door. It confirmed that it did not plan on replacing the door, and it said that a contractor who attended this on 13 May 2021 had reported that the door was sound, although this Service has not been provided a copy of this report.
29. The landlord asked the resident to report any further faults with the property’s front door in the future as repairs. It explained that each property was different, may require different works at different times, and the works completed to the resident’s neighbour’s property would be different to those in the resident’s.
30. The landlord concluded that, from the beginning of the resident’s tenancy, it had made efforts to deal with her reports of repairs as appropriate. It acknowledged that there was a delay in its completion of the general works to the property following its inspection in November 2020 and of the repair to the intercom there. It said that the delay to the general repairs was a result of restrictions imposed due to the Covid-19 pandemic and that these could not have been prevented, however it stated that the delay to repairing the intercom was caused by a missed appointment of the contractor. The landlord therefore offered the resident £50 compensation for this.
31. Further repairs were raised by the resident after the exhaustion of the landlord’s internal complaints procedure, including to the property’s front door and for the bathroom.
32. The resident’s complaint was subsequently referred to this Service by her local MP in the capacity of her designated person. She complained that there were long-standing repairs when she had moved in to the property, and she reiterated that the landlord had said that she would be put on its kitchen renewal programme in 2021-22, including due to the lack of kitchen cupboards there, and had discussed all of the repairs with her both before and after she had moved in. The resident added that its repeated changes of housing officers, and her disability causing most repairs to be reported to it via telephone, had meant that it had agreed and failed to respond to her about the property’s 26-year-old bathroom, shower, basin and tiles, resulting in leaks, for which she sought compensation for the loss of this room.
33. The resident also explained that she required a dishwasher since she could not wash dishes due to her disability, as well as for her malfunctioning cooker to be replaced at the same time as the kitchen renewal because of the lack of space there for her to purchase a new one. She additionally reported that the landlord had not completed repairs within its timescales and asked why she was not compensated for its repair delays during the corona virus lockdown, disputing the age and condition of her boiler as being over 20 years old with intermittent annual faults, a “dangerous leak” and inefficiencies. Moreover, the resident described her front door as having cold draughts, as needing to be replaced according to its contractor who had requested this, being over 26 years old, and “a risk for both safety and health.”
Assessment and findings
The landlord’s obligations
34. Under the terms of the resident’s tenancy agreement, the landlord is responsible for decorating the outside and common parts of the property’s building in accordance with its regular maintenance programme, and for carrying out repairs in line with the law and its repairs policy. This includes keeping the property’s structure and installations for the supply of gas, sanitation including basins, and for space and water heating in repair and proper working order.
35. In line with the tenancy agreement, the resident agrees to keep the interior of the property in a proper state of decoration and to keep all of the internal fixtures and fittings in good order. The tenant is also responsible for, on being given reasonable notice, allowing the landlord’s staff or agents to enter and inspect any part of the property or to carry out any repairs there.
36. In line with the tenancy agreement and the landlord’s improvements policy, the resident must request permission from the landlord, in writing or by email, prior to carrying out any improvements.
37. The landlord’s repairs policy says it will attend to emergency repairs within four hours and complete further work within 24 hours. It will complete routine repairs within 20 working days. The repairs procedure says that the landlord’s contractor will contact the resident to schedule the appointment.
The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for repairs and improvements to her bathroom
38. The resident proposed on 2 and 19 April 2021 to supply new tiles and a basin for the property’s bathroom because the existing ones there were broken, and she asked the landlord to supply the labour to install these. The landlord’s explanation in response to this on 18 May 2021, that it would be unable to do this but could raise a repair or the resident could request to complete the works herself, was in line with its stated practice and improvements policy.
39. This is because the landlord outlined that its policy did not allow for it to carry out repairs where the resident would provide material for the work, which either it could arrange to be carried out under its repairs policy, or she could organise with its prior consent under its improvements policy. As it had received no earlier reports of tile and basin repairs at the property from her, it was appropriate that it had not previously repaired these. Therefore, the landlord’s response to the resident’s request that it install the tiles and basin was reasonable.
40. The resident also asked the landlord to make changes to the shower in the property, and it explained to her on 16 April 2021 that an occupational therapist’s report recommending the shower alteration would be required for it to complete this, or that the resident may request to do this herself. This was, again, in line with its stated practice and the landlord’s improvements policy and was therefore reasonable. This is as a result of the fact that the resident explained to it on 19 April 2021 that she was seeking a bidet shower next to the toilet in the property’s bathroom, and so not a repair to an installation there that it was required to provide her tenancy agreement, but an improvement.
41. The landlord also appropriately raised a repair for the property’s bathroom tiles and basin “as soon as possible” in its final stage complaint response to the resident of 18 May 2021, as she had asked it to fit these above.
The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a kitchen upgrade.
42. In accordance with the Government’s Decent Homes Standard, the lifetime of a kitchen in a house or bungalow is 30 years. Moreover, Criterion C of the Decent Homes Standard states that a dwelling is considered not to meet this criterion if this lacks three or more of the following facilities:
- a kitchen which is 20 years old or less;
- a kitchen with adequate space and layout;
- a bathroom which is 30 years old or less;
- an appropriately located bathroom and WC;
- adequate external noise insulation; and
- adequate size and layout of common entrance areas for blocks of flats.
43. Therefore, when a resident states that their kitchen was not completed to a reasonable standard and that the layout was poor, a landlord should carry out an inspection to ensure that the aforementioned obligations are being met.
44. In this instance, the landlord inspected the property’s kitchen on 26 November 2020 following the resident’s earlier reports that this had outstanding works, including to the missing cupboard doors, which it noted on 12 October 2020 had previously been agreed by it with her, but had been delayed due to corona virus restrictions. The landlord confirmed on 18 May 2021 that it had previously advised the resident that the surveyor who had inspected the property had referred the kitchen for replacement, and that this was to be in the current year.
45. However, the landlord explained that, since then, the resident’s kitchen was placed in the kitchen renewal plan for 2022-23. The landlord apologised if this was disappointing, and it described having asked its assets team to consider bringing forward the replacement of the kitchen, which it agreed to contact her about. It also confirmed that the resident could raise any kitchen repairs required with it in the meantime.
46. Landlords are entitled to rely on the expert opinion of their appropriately qualified staff members and contractors, particularly in the absence of any other expert evidence to the contrary. The above steps taken by the landlord to inspect the resident’s kitchen, and to refer this to be replaced within the appropriate planned works scheme, based on the opinion of the surveyor were therefore reasonable. While the landlord did accept that it had misinformed the resident that her kitchen would be replaced a year earlier, it provided her with an appropriate remedy for this by apologising for the error and asking its assets team to consider bringing the kitchen renovation forward.
The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a new boiler
47. Further to the landlord noting that the resident had reported that the property’s boiler was 15 years old and frequently broke down, it enquired internally on 30 March 2021 about the possibility of this being upgraded. She requested a new boiler from it again on 2 April 2021, and it further corresponded about this internally on 13 April 2021. The landlord subsequently confirmed to the resident on 16 April 2021 that there were no immediate plans for it to replace the boiler, as it had attended this on three occasions in relation to two breakdowns, on 1 November 2020 and 15 February 2021, since the start of her tenancy, and the boiler was around ten years old.
48. The resident then disputed this on 19 April 2021, when she reported that the property’s boiler had been found by a surveyor to be 20 years old, and that this had had been recommended to be replaced by them, but that this was up to the landlord. However, it confirmed to her on 18 May 2021 that, while the surveyor might have stated that replacing the boiler may be beneficial, there were no current reports of this requiring a repair. The landlord also outlined that it was not its practice to replace functioning boilers that could be repaired, which it instead replaced when it was no longer possible to repair them and not according to their age, and so it had no current plans to replace the resident’s.
49. Given that social landlords are required to utilise their limited resources and funds proportionately, it would not be reasonable to expect a landlord to replace a component which could be repaired instead. The landlord reasonably managed the resident’s expectations in respect of her above requests for a new boiler by explaining that, although an operative may have said that a new boiler would be beneficial, it was not its practice to replace a functioning boiler which could be repaired. It explained that it replaced boilers when it was no longer possible to repair them, not according to their age, and there were no current plans to replace hers. As there were no outstanding repairs to the boiler, there was no further action for the landlord to take.
50. This is because the landlord was responsible, under the terms of the resident’s tenancy agreement above, for keeping installations such as the property’s boiler for the supply of gas and for space and water heating in repair and proper working order, and not to replace these unless they could not be repaired. As there was no evidence that the boiler required replacement or could not be repaired, including from the above surveyor’s inspection described by the resident, the landlord was not obliged to replace her boiler.
The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs required to and request for a new front door
51. In the resident’s stage one complaint of 2 April 2021, she asked for her front door to be replaced because this was old and damaged, and she said that this was previously agreed by the landlord. The landlord was nevertheless unable to locate any records regarding any promise to change the front door. It therefore inspected the door on 13 May 2021, but it found no faults with this and so it confirmed to the resident on 18 May 2021 that it did not plan on replacing the door. The landlord asked the resident to report any further faults with the door in the future as a repair.
52. As explained above, in the absence of any other evidence to the contrary a landlord is entitled to rely on the expert opinion of its appropriately qualified contractor, which found no evidence of any fault with the resident’s front door. Although there was evidence of repairs identified to the door after the exhaustion of the landlord’s internal complaints procedure on 18 May 2021, the landlord’s above final complaint response to the resident on that date was reasonable given the information available to it at the time.
53. Again, social landlords are required to utilise their limited resources and funds proportionately, and so the landlord’s explanation regarding why it would not replace the resident’s front door at this time was reasonable because there was then no evidence of an outstanding repair to this requiring it to do so. It also provided an appropriate explanation for why the neighbour’s door may be replaced and not the resident’s, as its final complaint response told her that each property was different, might require different works at different times, and the neighbour’s works would be different to those of the resident’s.
The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for repairs to address cracks in her property
54. The works to address cracks to the resident’s property were agreed with the property’s previous tenant by the landlord, but these were not completed by the landlord due to corona virus restrictions. Following the resident’s mutual exchange there, the landlord inspected the property on 26 November 2020. Works to address the cracks there were then originally scheduled to begin on 12 January 2021, however, due to another corona virus lockdown, these were delayed further.
55. On 10 March 2021, the resident confirmed that she was ready for the works for the property’s cracks to be re-scheduled, and so the works subsequently arranged by the landlord were due to start on 29 March 2021. However, due to health issues, this was postponed by the resident. At the time of the landlord’s final complaint response to her of 18 May 2021, these works were scheduled to begin on 19 May 2021.
56. While it was understandably frustrating for the resident that there were delays in the completion of the works to address the cracks at the property, following the landlord’s above inspection of these in November 2021, the circumstances in which the delays to the works were caused were outside of its control. Landlords cannot be penalised where corona virus restrictions, and a subsequent backlog of repairs, delay routine repairs when the resident was kept updated on the delays that were not excessive.
57. The evidence also indicated that the landlord had arranged for the completion of the works for the cracks at the property, but that these were postponed at the resident’s request in March 2021. Ultimately, the landlord’s above explanations for the delays to the works was reasonable given all the circumstances of the resident’s case.
The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs to her extractor fan and intercom
58. The landlord raised a repair on 23 March 2021 for a faulty extractor fan at the resident’s property. The landlord’s contractor attended this within its repairs policy’s above 20-working-day timeframe for routine repairs on 31 March 2021, and reported that the fan was left in working order. However, the resident disputed this, and therefore the landlord asked its contractor to re-attend to fix or replace the fan. Although the resident disagreed with the contractor’s findings, the landlord acted in line with its policy in handling the repair. It also reasonably arranged for a second operative to attend, when the resident disputed that the fan was in working order and provided more details on the repair.
59. The landlord raised a repair for the resident’s intercom on 30 March 2021, and its contractor attended this on 9 April 2021, but they were not given access to her property due to her not being notified of the appointment. The landlord’s contractor not notifying the resident of the appointment was not in line with its above repairs procedure, which says that its contractor will contact residents to schedule appointments. This led to the need for the landlord to re-raise the repair, which ultimately would have resulted in it attending this outside of the above 20-working-day timeframe in its repairs policy, as it re-raised the works on 23 April 2021 and the resident was unavailable for these until after 19 May 2021.
60. In the final stage response to the resident’s complaint on 18 May 2021, the landlord confirmed that it had re-raised the intercom repair, and it offered her £50 compensation for her not being notified of the previous appointment for this on 9 April 2021. This was in line with this Service’s remedies guidance, which recommends a similar amount of compensation where there has been a service failure, which had an impact on the resident but was of short duration, and that may not have significantly affected the overall outcome for her. This meant that the compensation amount offered was overall proportionate to the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by this, and was therefore reasonable.
Determination (decision)
61. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
- Request for repairs and improvements to her bathroom.
- Request for a kitchen upgrade.
- Request for a new boiler.
- Reports of repairs required to and request for a new front door.
- Request for repairs to address cracks in her property.
62. In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the resident prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint about its handling of her reports of repairs to her extractor fan and intercom satisfactorily.
63. This decision is dependent on the below recommendation being followed by the landlord.
Reasons
64. The landlord overall appropriately handled the multiple repairs and improvements raised by the resident, in line with good practice and its repairs and improvements policies’ timescales and requirements, given all of the circumstances of her case, including repeated corona virus restrictions and her unavailability for some appointments due to her ill-health. Although there was a failure when the landlord’s contractor did not notify the resident of an appointment for the repair of her intercom, the landlord provided reasonable redress to her for this by way of an apology and proportionate compensation, in line with this Service’s remedies guidance.
Recommendation
65. It is recommended that the landlord re-offer the resident the £50 compensation that it previously awarded her, if she has not received this already.
66. The landlord should contact this Service within four weeks to confirm whether it will follow the above recommendation.
67. 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.