Notting Hill Genesis (202117594)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202117594

Notting Hill Genesis

12 January 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:
1. The level of redress offered by the landlord for its acknowledged failures in its response to the resident’s reports of loss of heating for a significant period of time.
2. The landlord’s complaint handling.
3. The landlord’s record keeping.

Background and summary of events

The resident is an assured tenant of one bedroom ground floor flat.
The landlord’s responsive repairs policy says that it aims to deliver routine repairs within 20 working days. It also aims to complete repairs on the first visit and will monitor this measure.
Appendix A of the repairs policy sets out that the landlord is responsible for the repairs to the existing central heating, water heaters and electrical repairs.
The landlord operates a two stage complaints procedure. At Stage 1, a response is sent within 10 working days, and at Stage 2, a response is due within 20 working days.
The landlord awards compensation depending on the level of service not being met. This ranges from £50 for low impact; to £100 for medium impact; up to £250 for serious failures; and over £250 for multiple service failures and significant time and delay for issues to be resolved.
It pays a set amount for each day after the first 48 hours that a resident is without heating. This is 10% of the day rent for each day without heating. It also pays compensation for loss or severe limitations of use of rooms, which is 20% of the daily rent for a living room and 25% of the daily rent for a bedroom.
The resident’s heating issues were initially reported in 2015 and at the time dealt with by the landlord’s heating contractor. This service has seen no evidence of the resident’s complaint in 2017 or the heating contractor’s response, which was issues on 25 February 2019, but according to the landlord’s documents, the resident had experienced considerable service failure and the heating had not been working during this period.
The heating contractor was then changed in 2019. In December 2019, the new contractor attended the property and reported that the storage heaters needed to be replaced as there was no heating at the property.
The landlord arranged further inspection for taking measurements. The outcome of the inspection suggested that it had to rewire the electrics before changing the heaters.
On 24 January 2020, the resident raised a formal complaint. He said:
1. He was dissatisfied that the landlord had arranged numerous appointments for the heating to be changed and the electrics to be rewired, but the works had not been carried out.
2. He had to take a considerable time off work due to the job appointments and this had affected his income. He had to provide access to the property and had to be off work even for the cancelled appointments because some of them had been cancelled on the same day.
3. He still did not have heating at the property. The property was cold as it was a ground floor one and next to the entrance door, there was a draught and the inside temperature was like the outside temperature. He had suffered with anxiety and depression throughout this.
4. His electric bill was really high from using portable heaters and he was not able to afford this any longer.
5. He was seeking:
  1. A response from the management why it had taken so long to deal with the issue.
  2. Repairs to the heaters.
  3. Compensation.
The landlord fitted new heaters on 13 February 2020, but no response was sent to the resident following the completion of works.
On 20 February 2020, the resident reported that despite the heaters being hanged there was insufficient heating at the property and he had to use fan heaters again. There are no evidence to suggest how the landlord responded to those reports.
On 21 December 2020, the landlord attended the property to do an electrical service and established that the heaters were not enough. The resident advised the operative that this had been previously established during an electrical service in February 2020 following his reports that bigger heaters were needed for sufficient heating.
The resident raised another complaint on 13 January 2021. The resident said:
1. He was living in a nightmare for the last 5 years due to no heating. He reported being in an “ice box which had caused mould on the window frames”.
2. There was draught between the windows and the front door. The door was not “long enough” to prevent it.
3. It had taken 4 years for the landlord to replace the radiators and when this had been finally done the heaters were insufficient in the bedroom and the living room. He had reported the new heaters were smaller on the same day they had been installed, but nothing was done to date.
4. The staff dealing with the issue were rude.
5. He had been told that heaters could not be replaced without electrical survey although such a survey had not been carried out prior to changing them on 13 February 2020.
6. He had not been offered electrical heaters on 15 January (presumably 2020) as the landlord stated in previous correspondence.
7. He had not received any updates unless he chased the landlord.
There is evidence of a heat loss survey carried out at the property in January 2021. However, the landlord arranged for another survey in March 2021, rather than follow up on the first one. According to further correspondence between the resident, the heating contractor and the landlord, the heaters were replaced on 30 March 2021.
On 13 April 2021, the landlord provided its stage one response. It said:
1. It had been able to locate a complaint from 2017 about a heating issue. The initial heating problem was unresolved by its heating contractor at the time and when the heating contractors had changed in 2019, the new contractors removed the storage heaters. Following various surveys, it was confirmed that the new heaters installed had not been the right size. Heating had been finally restored in March 2021.
2. The landlord admitted that the resident had to endure long periods without heating and apologised for the distress this had caused. It also admitted its heating contractors’ failures to act in a timely and reasonable manner.
3. It acknowledged that there had been multiple service failures from its Housing Officers, call backs were not returned and emails were not responded to within a reasonable timeframe on many occasions.
4. It acknowledged the resident’s frustration with regards to the effect on his mental health and work arrangements. The resident had to take numerous days off work and sometimes the engineers would not show up.
5. It apologised and offered £2000 compensation for the lack of heating and the inconvenience caused.
The resident escalated his complaint on 16 April 2021. He said:
1. The level of compensation was not satisfactory and did not respond to the “severity of maladministration” he had experienced from early 2017 until March 2021.
2. He would like to be offered similar compensation in line with similar caselaw. He gave an example one of the Ombudsman’s severe maladministration cases. He suggested that 30% of the rent for the period from 2017 until 2021 was a fair compensation.
3. The compensation awarded did not take into account the miscommunication between the landlord and the heating contractors and the lack of communication and updates to the resident.
The landlord responded at stage two on 19 November 2021. The landlord said:
1. It had reviewed the repair reports from its initial heating contractor and established that the resident had reported heating issues from December 2015. This was not resolved when the heating contractor was changed in 2019. However, the new heating contractor delayed further the works and replaced the heaters in February 2020. The new heaters were not the right size and in December 2020, the contractor following a survey reported loss of heat. The heaters were not changed with the right size until March 2021.
2. The landlord admitted that it had been unacceptable for the resident to wait over 6 years for the heating at the property to be restored. It apologised and offered compensation of 10% of the daily rent for each winter day the resident was without heating to a total of £2020.20:
  1. 182 days (October to March)
  2. 182 x 6 = 1092 days
  3. 10% of the daily rent = £1.85 (£128.77 weekly = £18.40 daily x 10% = £1.85)
3. It acknowledged that the delays in restoring the heating had caused stress and inconvenience. It apologised and offered compensation of £750.
4. It admitted poor communication with the heating contractor and with the resident. It apologised and offered £250 for any distress or inconvenience caused by lack of communication from all parties involved.
5. It admitted that temporary heaters had not been provided at the property. It acknowledged that the resident had to use electric heaters, apologised and offered £150 towards any higher amount of electric bill the resident could have paid. It also invited the resident to send any additional bills or information and it would further investigate.
6. It admitted complaint handing failures. It had closed the complaint from 24 January 2020 without any response. Then, it had delayed its response at stage one and stage two of the complaints process. It apologised and offered £300 for the inconvenience those failures caused, comprising of £150 for complaint closure, £50 for delays at stage one and £100 for delays at stage two.
7. The overall compensation amounted to £3170.20.
8. It had learned from its failures. It had started holding weekly complaint meetings to discuss complex cases and the repairs involved. It also had arranged its heating contractors to provide daily update on any properties left without heating or hot water. It would monitor those repairs closely to avoid any delays.
9. It offered to raise concerns if necessary for the draught issues to be investigated.
The resident brought the complaint to this Service on 14 January 2022. He explained that:
1. He remained dissatisfied with the level of compensation as it did not reflect the severity and the duration of no heating at the property.
2. Although he had heating working, the property was still not heated enough and he reported this in December 2021 to the landlord. He wanted checks carried out to the heating and the boiler to ensure that they were in working order.
3. Despite the landlord putting a plastic strip to the bottom of his front door there was still considerable draught contributing to the property not being heated enough. The resident believes the draught is reinforced by the poor condition of the building entrance door which is very close to his property’s front door.

Assessment and findings

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

The level of redress offered by the landlord for its acknowledged failures in its response to the resident’s reports of loss of heating for a significant period of time.

This Service was provided with very limited information on this complaint and the timeline of events was extracted from the landlord’s two formal responses and a few internal emails between January 2020 and April 2021. This will be further discussed in the record keeping section.
Whilst there is a limited information about the circumstances of the complaint, it is not disputed that:
1. The landlord is responsible for the repairs to the heating at the property.
2. The landlord’s contractors were acting on behalf of the landlord at all times in its dealings with the resident.
3. The landlord failed to restore the heating for a considerable period of time which both parties agreed to be over 6 years.
4. The lack of communication, the numerous appointments by the heating contractors, the missed appointments and the number of surveys arranged have caused considerable distress and inconvenience to the resident.
5. The situation has caused an increase in the resident’s electrical bills due to using temporary electric heaters and he was unable to enjoy the whole of his property during the winter months.
When there are failings by a landlord, as is the case here, the Ombudsman will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord (apology, compensation and details of lessons learned) put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles; be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
The landlord learned from the outcome and had shown determination in its final response to monitor similar situation with its heating contractors. Additionally, it was aware of the need to discuss and act on complex complaints and said it had arranged weekly meeting to discuss and share experience on such cases.
The landlord, acted fairly by acknowledging it did not resolve the heating issues for 6 years and did not manage the resident’s expectations for this time. It acted fairly by apologising for this. It also offered to explore the draught issue further in order to completely resolve the heating issue at the property. This was an appropriate and resolution orientated offer.
It put things right by installing proportionate to the room size radiators. It also offered compensation which it stated was in line with its compensation policy. However, the level of compensation does not reflect the severity of the failures and their duration.
Its compensation policy states that when the resident experience loss of heating, the landlord should compensate 10% of the daily rent for each day of the heating loss after the initial 48 hours. This service considers that this could have been a fair and reasonable compensation if the resident experienced such a loss for a few weeks or months. However, the resident experienced this inconvenience for over 6 years and as per his statement he was unable to use two of his rooms during the winter months.
If it was not for the landlord’s final response where it thoroughly explored and acknowledged its failures, the loss of heating for six years, the lack of any action taken by the landlord, the lack of communication, the number of missed appointments and the impact those failures had on the resident would have amounted to severe maladministration. However, the compensation of £3170.20 offered for those failures was not proportionate to the distress and inconvenience incurred by the resident for the landlord’s failures to deal with the repairs to the heating system and the inconvenience this has caused to the resident.
The landlord’s compensation policy states that it will consider awarding compensation for loss or severe limitation of use of rooms for a considerable period of time. In the circumstances of this case, it is reasonable to consider some payments towards limitation of use of rooms. This is because it is evident that the resident was not able properly to heat the entire property with temporary heaters during the time the heating issue remained unresolved. Hence, in addition to the 10% of the daily rent for loss of heating, it is fair that a further 10% of the daily rent is awarded.
The landlord also awarded £750 for the inconvenience the delays in resolving the issue had caused. This is insufficient for the duration and the impact the loss of heating had on the resident. Additional compensation of £700 for distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s delays in resolving the issue is considered fair and reasonable in these circumstances.
Therefore, for the reasons set out in the previous four paragraphs the Ombudsman considers that the landlord’s compensation offer was not proportionate to the distress and inconvenience incurred by the resident as a result of its failures and the landlord has not done enough to put things right. The additional compensation has been ordered below to address this failure.

The landlord’s complaint handling

There is no dispute that the resident initially raised a complaint as far back as 2017 and there is no evidence to suggest how the landlord has monitored or responded to this complaint.
The omission to raise a formal complaint in January 2020 and delays in stage one and stage two were acknowledged in its final response. The landlord also learned from its failures and arranged weekly meetings to discuss more complex cases. As such, the landlord acted in line with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles. It also accepted its failure in closing the complaint from January 2020 and the delays at stage one (over two months) and at the final stage (of over 4 months). It apologised and offered compensation of £300 for these complaint handling failures. This was fair and proportionate to the complaint handling failures it had identified.
Whilst the landlord explored satisfactorily its failures in the complaint handling since January 2020, it failed to provide any explanation as to why it did not previously act on the heating issue complaint raised initially in 2017 and what went wrong in its complaint handling at the time. Not raising those heating issues as a formal complaint at the time was in inappropriate and it would have been resolution focused for the landlord to ensure it understood what went wrong at the time and explain this and any learning in its otherwise comprehensive November 2021 response.
The omission to monitor those initial reports of dissatisfaction has caused additional delays and inconvenience to the resident. If the landlord had raised those concerns through its formal complaints procedure, the resident may have got an earlier opportunity for resolution by progressing the issues to senior staff or eventually to the Ombudsman. Hence, this service orders additional compensation in respect of the earlier complaint handling failures and the landlord’s failure to address these in its final response.

Record keeping

When this Service contacted the landlord in relation to our investigation, we requested information, including:
1. repair records, such as repair logs, records of dates property attended, an explanation of works completed at each visit, details of any outstanding issues identified.
2. correspondence and telephone contact notes concerning the resident’s repair reports
3. copies of any survey or inspection reports, or feedback from other employees or contractors
4. any records concerning the landlord’s investigation into the repair reports
Whilst the landlord has provided some internal correspondence and some correspondence between the second heating contractor and itself, it failed to provide any repair records and evidence on which it based its findings. The lack of repair records is concerning and a failure on the part of the landlord.
The landlord’s contractors are extensions of the landlord and as such there should be a system in place for the landlord to request that the contractors maintain accurate records of repair reports, logs, responses, inspections and investigations. The landlord should also ensure that it keeps record of any communication with its contractors in relation to any repair.
Good record keeping is vital to evidence the action a landlord or its contractors have taken and failure to keep adequate records indicates that the landlord’s repairs processes are not operating effectively. As this Service has not received any repair records, and for the reasons set out above, there was maladministration in the landlord’s record keeping.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was:
1. Maladministration in respect of the level of redress offered by the landlord for its acknowledged failures in its response to the resident’s reports of loss of heating for a significant period of time.
2. Maladministration in respect of its complaint handling.
3. Maladministration in respect of the record keeping.

Reasons

Whilst the landlord admitted its failures, apologised and offered compensation, it failed to acknowledge the extend of its failures and provide proportionate compensation for the inconvenience and distress caused to the resident by the loss of heating and the amount of time it took to restore it.
The landlord acknowledges its failures in its complaint handling since the resident’s complaint from January 2020. However, it failed to address why the complaint from 2017 was not monitored and responded to.
The landlord did not keep and provide appropriate repair records to explain how it met its obligations and to evidence its findings. There is no evidence that it obtained such a record from its heating contractors.

Orders and recommendations

The landlord is ordered within four weeks of the date of this report to pay the resident £6390.40 and provide evidence to this service. This is comprised of:
1. £3470.20 previously offered if it has not been already paid.
2. A further £2020.20 for the loss of heating and loss of rooms during winter times for 6 years.
3. A further £700 for the inconvenience and distressed caused by the delays in repairing the heating system.
4. A further £200 for the time and trouble incurred by the resident as a result of the landlord’s complaint handling failures.
The landlord is ordered that within four weeks of this report, it investigates further the issue with the draught coming from the building entrance door and the heating not being sufficient. It should provide the resident with a plan of action, and copy in this Service. If the resident remains dissatisfied with the proposed resolution, a new complaint should be raised.
It is ordered that within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord provide evidence to this Service that it has learned from the outcome of this complaint. This should include:
1. Evidence of the weekly meetings for complex cases
2. Evidence of the heating contractor’s monitoring.