Notting Hill Genesis (202114947)

A picture containing logo

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202114947

Notting Hill Genesis

17 March 2023

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 about the landlord’s handling of:
1. The repair of the resident’s hot water system.
2. Works to address overheating issues in their property.
The resident also complained about the landlord’s communication and handling of his complaint about this matter.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42(a) of the Scheme, the following aspect of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
1. The repair of the resident’s hot water system.

Paragraph 42(a) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion: “Are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint-handling failure, and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale”.
This service has seen evidence that the resident reported that his hot water had not been working for three weeks on 2 November 2021. However, this incident occurred after the resident’s complaint about the heating issues in his home had exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints procedure and his concerns about the hot water supply were not referenced in its formal responses dated 10 May 2021 and 2 September 2021. Therefore, this service is not satisfied the landlord has had a chance to investigate these concerns via its internal complaints procedure and, on this basis, this part of the complaint does not fall within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to consider further.
This service notes there was also an incident in 2018 where the resident reported not having hot water. However as this was a historic report and the landlord did not consider it in its complaint responses, this incident has not been considered within this investigation.

Background and summary of events

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, a housing association. The tenancy commenced on 23 May 2011 and the property is a flat, built in 2011.
There has been a long-standing issue in the resident’s property with it overheating since he moved into it in 2011. Over the years there have been several attempts made by the landlord to rectify the matter. Contractors previously suggested the ongoing issue was due to a defective boiler. It found pipes had not been properly insulated and arranged a repair of this.
As this issue was ongoing for a period of the time and the resident’s housing conditions were not improving he emailed the landlord to raise a complaint on 27 May 2020. The resident explained that the situation was becoming unbearable and was impacting his physical and mental health. He said that two engineers had visited the property that day and also complained about the heat. He also said that over five years over 10 visits had been made from engineers in an attempt to resolve the issue, but the fault still remained.
Following this, on 4 August 2020 the resident contacted the landlord as he was concerned that he had not had a response to his complaint. He reiterated the impact this was having on his health. In response the landlord asked the resident to contact his housing manager directly and forwarded on the message.
In response to the resident’s concerns the landlord arranged two engineer visits in September 2020, it was identified there was an issue with the boiler which was causing the property to overheat, it was also noted that there was no outlet pipe from the boiler cupboard. Consequently, the landlord put in an order for repairs to be completed on 13 January 2021, but this appointment was missed by the contractors due to sickness. The appointment was rescheduled for 10 February 2021 but again was later cancelled by the contractor and rescheduled. The required works took place on 16 February 2021.
During February 2021, the resident had further expressed upset that his complaint had not been followed up, he was also unhappy that he was having to chase a response and had experienced missed appointments. After seeking legal advice, he explained to the landlord that he was seeking compensation.
On 31 March 2021 the landlord’s contractors wrote to the resident to apologise for the missed appointment, and offered him £60 compensation. The contractors also updated the resident on further repairs required and explained that it was currently waiting for the landlord to approve these. Subsequently in April 2021 the repair was conducted.
On 10 May 2021, the landlord issued its stage one complaint response. It understood the resident’s complaint to be about the following:
1. The length of time taken to complete a full repair.
2. The lack of communication to keep the resident updated.
Overall, the landlord acknowledged that its service was not up to standards, in particular the length of time taken to resolve the matter and the lack of communication. It apologised to the resident for this and offered compensation, which consisted of:
1. £250 for stress and inconvenience.
2. £150 for lack of communication throughout the repair.
3. £60 for cancelled appointments.
In response, the resident said that he was unhappy with the offer and was seeking further compensation. He requested for the complaint to be escalated to stage two of the landlord’s complaints procedure on 13 May 2021.
As the resident had reported issues remained, the landlord arranged a further inspection of the property on 27 August 2021, following this, it explained It would establish the best way to move forward.
Subsequently, the landlord provided its stage two response on 2 September 2021. It increased its offer of compensation to reflect the following:
1. Stress and inconvenience £400.
2. Lack of communication/ complaint mis-handling £400.
3. Missed/ cancelled appointments £60.
4. Delays to completing repair £150.
5. Fans purchased £260.
On 27 September 2021, the resident contacted the landlord again to explained that the temperature in the property had gone back up. The landlord then instructed its contractors to contact the resident directly.
As the resident remained unsatisfied with the landlord’s response, the complaint was sent to this service for adjudication. The resident is seeking for the level of compensation to be increased to £6,000 to reflect the 10 years this issue had been ongoing. The resident has confirmed the property is still overheating due to poor ventilation.

Assessment and findings

The resident had advised that the issues concerning the overheating of his property have been ongoing since 2011, and he would like compensation to factor in the length of time it has taken for the landlord to attempt to fix the issues. Whilst this service acknowledges this, and it has been noted as context, the Ombudsman will not investigate the historic issues reported. This investigation has primarily focussed on the landlord’s handling and response to the resident’s recent reports regarding the heating system from September 2020 onwards, which were considered during the landlord’s recent complaint responses. This is because residents are expected to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues whilst they are still ‘live’, and while the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events that occurred. Therefore, this service has considered the recent reports which are relevant to the landlord’s formal responses.
This service recognises there was a leak which occurred in 2018 which the landlord compensated the resident £300 for in its formal response dated 1 September 2021 (comprised of £250 for damaged trainers and £50 for a carpet clean). Whilst this is acknowledged it does not form the scope of this investigation, for the reasons set out above.

The landlord’s handling of works to address overheating issues in the resident’s property.

The resident had expressed he is unhappy with the level of compensation offered and is seeking £6000 for the length of time it has taken for the landlord to resolve the matter and the impact this has had on his family over the years.
It is evident that the resident has lived with these conditions for a significant amount of time and had been reporting this to the landlord. This service has reviewed the repairs history and can see that on 31 July 2019, a repair was completed in the resident’s property for a defective boiler, it had been reported by the resident that there was constant heat in the property despite it being turned off.
Subsequently in September 2020 there were two repairs listed on the repairs history. These were also in connection to a defective boiler and excessive heat within the property. The evidence shows that when the resident had reported his concerns, the landlord arranged for operatives to attend the property and for investigations to be conducted, however despite its attempts the issue remained unresolved. The landlord further arranged for works throughout 2021, and an inspection in an effort to attempt to resolve the matter.
It is clear that the resident had contacted the landlord several times in 2020 and 2021 to complain about the conditions of his property and also to raise a formal complaint. From the information, it is also evident the resident had to chase for responses, there were delays and also missed appointments.
Section 5 of the landlord’s responsive repairs policy sets out response times for repairs. For routine repairs it states it aims to have work completed within 20 days from the date of report. The evidence shows that despite the landlord appointing its contractors in September 2020 to conduct repairs, it has taken several attempts and exceeded this timeframe.
The Ombudsman recognises that sometimes it is challenging for landlords and its contractors to diagnose the root cause of faults. This service also acknowledges that for complex situations it can sometimes take several attendances, over a period of time to assess options and resolve the issue. In such circumstances the Ombudsman expects landlords to actively seek a way to resolve the problem and to be in reasonable communication with the resident throughout the process.
In this instance, from when the resident reported the issue in September 2020, it is evident the landlord had been in communication with its contractors to resolve the matter. However, there was a lack of communication with the resident during this period.
The landlord acknowledged its delays in completing repairs and considered its compensation policy, consequently offering the resident £150 for delay.
The landlord’s compensation policy states that in instances where the impact is high it would offer up to £250 compensation. This includes circumstances where there is –
1. A serious failure in service standards.
2. The issue is clearly an injustice to the resident causing a significant level of distress and inconvenience.
3. A persistent failure over a prolonged period of time.
4. An unacceptable number of attempts to address and resolve an issue.
Considering the landlord offered the resident an additional compensation amount of £400 for stress and inconvenience, the overall amount exceeds what the landlord would normally give in such circumstances. In addition, the landlord also reimbursed the resident £260 for fans which were purchased in an attempt to regulate the heat.
The resident had also expressed upset about missed appointments in his complaint. The evidence shows that on two occasions during January and February 2021 the contractor failed to show up to the appointments, which resulted in further distress for the resident. The landlord apologised for this and considered its compensation policy. Section 3.1 of the landlord’s compensation and goodwill gestures procedure states that residents may be entitled to £30 compensation for a missed contractors’ appointment.
This service understands how these missed appointments caused upset to the resident. However, in this instance, the resident was awarded £60 for two missed appointments, which is in accordance with the landlord’s guidelines. Therefore, it is the Ombudsman’s view that the landlord’s actions were fair, and it offered reasonable redress for this part of the complaint.
Since the complaint has been with this service, the Ombudsman has seen evidence to suggest that, after the resident exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure, the issue of the property overheating reoccurred and the resident has been in further communication with the landlord. The resident informed this service on 17 January 2023 that the issues are still ongoing.
This service has seen the landlord took steps to put matters right for the resident by arranging a further inspection in its final response. Whilst this service recognises an inspection was conducted on 27 August 2021, it is of concern that the resident has recently told us that the property is continuing to overheat. The Ombudsman has not investigated matters that have occurred after the end of the complaints procedure and has not seen or requested evidence of what has happened since September 2021.
The Ombudsman’s finding of reasonable redress in this case is based on the landlord’s actions as at September 2021, when the complaint completed its complaints procedure. Whilst we have not investigated or drawn any conclusions about events after this point, the resident’s recent report that the issue has reoccurred is of concern, particularly when considered in the context of the history of issues at the property.
The Ombudsman is therefore recommending that the landlord promptly arrange a further inspection of the property, and then ensure that there is a plan in place to resolve any issues identified. Should there be any further delays, or service failings the landlord consider whether it would be appropriate to use its compensation policy to ensure a fair resolution for the resident.

The landlord’s communication and complaint handling

The resident had expressed that he was unhappy with the landlord’s complaint handling and lack of communication and he had complained on numerous occasions about the issues with his flat.
Section 5 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code sets out what is expected of landlords when responding to residents’ complaints. It is expected that a landlord responds to complaints effectively and fairly.
The landlord’s complaints policy states that, for complaints at stage one of its complaints procedure, it will aim to resolve complaints within 10 working days. If it is unable to, it will explain this to the resident and aim to respond within a further 10 days. For stage two complaints it will aim to provide an outcome within 20 working days. If it is unable to do so, to it will provide a written explanation and aim to respond within a further 10 working days.
In this instance, whilst we acknowledge the resident expressed that he had complained numerous times to the landlord, for the purpose of this investigation, we have only referred to the most recent complaint dated 27 May 2020, for the reasons set out above.
The evidence shows that despite the landlord’s expected time frames it did not issue a stage one response to the resident until 10 May 2021. The evidence further shows, following the resident’s escalation of complaint, the landlord issued its stage two response on 2 September 2021.
It is clear that the landlord was delayed in providing the resident with a response within the expected timeframes at both stages of its complaints procedure. Whilst this service acknowledges that the landlord apologised, it is the Ombudsman’s view that the length of time taken to respond to the complaint was unreasonable, especially in circumstances where the resident was having to chase the landlord.
Nonetheless, the landlord acknowledged its service failings, apologised to the resident and as a result considered its compensation policy for the lack of communication and mishandling of the complaint.
The landlord’s compensation policy states where it has failed to meet its service standards and this failure has caused inconvenience and distress that has not been manageable for the resident, compensation up to £125 is considered.
This service acknowledges that the delays caused inconvenience and upset to the resident but this has been acknowledged and the compensation is in line with what this service would expect to see. Taken altogether, it is the Ombudsman’s opinion the £400 compensation offered was fair and reasonable.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress offered by the landlord in response to the resident’s complaint about its handling of works to address overheating issues in their property.
In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress offered by the landlord in respect of its communication and complaint handling.

Reasons

There have been clear delays in resolving the overheating issue in the flat. However, the landlord has been proactive in attempting to repair the matter by attending to the boiler, pipes and the ventilation unit. It also acknowledged its service failings. The level of compensation is in line with the landlord’s guidelines, and in the Ombudsman’s view is reasonable.
There was service failure by the landlord in regard to its complaint handling and communication. However it was proactive in compensating the resident for its failings and made an offer to the resident that, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, constituted reasonable redress.

Orders and recommendations

Recommendations

If not done so already, the landlord to ensure its compensation offer is paid to the resident within four weeks of the date of this report
The landlord to arrange a further inspection of the property, this should be completed within four weeks of the date of this letter. The landlord should then ensure there is a plan of action in place to resolve any issues identified. Should there be any further delays, lack of communication or service failings the landlord should consider using its compensation policy.