Notting Hill Genesis (202118481)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202118481

Notting Hill Genesis

4 August 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s:
    1. response to the resident’s report of a communal door being unsecure;
    2. complaints handling.

Background

  1. The resident has been an assured tenant at the property of the landlord since 19 October 2011. The landlord is a registered provider of social housing.
  2. On 4 September 2020, the resident reported that the communal front door lock was faulty and the door was unsecure. The landlord’s contractor attended as an emergency appointment but was unable to complete the work due to requiring additional parts and an electrician. Several other appointments were attended before the lock was repaired on 10 September 2020.
  3. The resident raised a complaint on 15 September 2020 as she was dissatisfied with the length of time it took for the landlord to complete the repair. She also asked what reasonable adjustments the landlord had made due to several residents having disabilities.
  4. In the landlord’s final response on 2 March 2022, it explained that although contractors would attend an emergency appointment within four hours to make the repair safe, it is not always able to complete the repair in that timeframe. It acknowledged that it should have ensured that all residents in the block were kept up to date on the repair progress. It offered £50 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by the repair, £50 for the delay in the stage two response and £200 for the delay in escalating the complaint and the lack of information it had recorded regarding the complaint.
  5. In the resident’s complaint to this service, she advised she remained dissatisfied due to the length of time to complete the repair as she felt the situation was unsafe and the landlord should have made reasonable adjustments. She also advised the landlord had failed to provide reasons for the repair delays.

Assessment and findings

Communal door

  1. The landlord’s repairs policy notes it is responsible for completing repairs to communal doors. The policy also notes that it will “aim to attend within four hours and have all major services restored within 24 hours” for emergency repair issues. Routine repairs will be completed within 20 working days. The landlord considers that the property not being secure is an emergency repair.
  2. On receiving a report that the communal front door lock was jammed on 4 September 2020, the landlord raised an emergency repair. The contractor attended and gained access, however, noted that the door was not lockable. A specialist contractor was required as there was a fault with the digital lock. On 5 September 2020, the resident reported that the handle on the communal front door had come off, and she was locked in the property; a further emergency out of hours repair was raised to make the property safe. The specialist contractor was subsequently booked. A general contractor attended on 8 September 2020 and rebuilt part of the lock to make a temporary locking system, so the door could be locked. The lock was then repaired by a specialist contractor on 10 September 2020.
  3. Although the landlord should aim to adhere to its repair timeframe, there are often reasonable explanations for why a repair can take longer. In this case, the landlord explained in its complaint response that it required additional parts and a specialist contractor to complete the repair. It also advised that the specialist contractor did not work during out of hours, and as a result, delays caused over the weekend (5 September 2020 and 6 September 2020) would have been unavoidable. When repair timeframes are exceeded, the landlord’s primary focus should be on taking clear and appropriate steps to resolve the issue in a reasonable timeframe, arranging temporary fixes in the interim (if possible), keeping the resident appropriately up to date, and managing their expectations.
  4. Although the landlord was unable to immediately secure the front communal door, it raised emergency appointments each time there was a report of access issues to ensure residents were able to enter and leave the property. The landlord implemented an interim measure to increase the security of the property as a temporary lock was installed on 8 September 2020. In its complaint response, the landlord acknowledged that this action could have potentially been taken sooner, if a more experienced locksmith had initially attended. The landlord therefore acted in line with its emergency response timeframes when there were access issues to the property, it took steps to ensure the works were completed in a reasonable timeframe, provided clear explanations for why the repair took longer than expected and acknowledged how its service could have been improved.
  5. In her complaint, the resident asked what reasonable adjustments the landlord had made due to several residents in the block being vulnerable. The landlord explained that as the delays in the repair were unavoidable, it was unable to make any adjustments beyond the temporary repair it had caried out. This was reasonable as the landlord had acted in line with its repair responsibilities and there was no evidence that the resident’s individual property was unsecure, which would have warranted additional measures. However, in its stage one response, the landlord proposed that it could install CCTV to prevent any further acts of vandalism (which it advised had contributed to the damage to the lock, but there was no evidence to confirm this). There was no evidence to suggest that this action has been completed or that the resident’s expectations were appropriately managed regarding the likelihood of CCTV being installed. A recommendation has been made below that the landlord should write to the resident to confirm its position on the issue.
  6. The landlord acknowledged that it could have improved its communication and ensured that all of the residents in the block were provided with regular updates. This service has not been provided with communication records from the time period of the repair issue, however, given that the resident made numerous reports, and the landlord was aware of delays, the Ombudsman would expect a landlord to provide regular updates on the progress of the repair and any issues which led to it being delayed, which it did not do in this instance.
  7. In the landlord’s final response, it offered £50 compensation due to the distress and inconvenience caused by the repair issue to the communal front door lock. In line with this service’s remedy guidance, awards of £50-£250 are appropriate in cases to “recognise that there has been service failure which had an impact on the complainant but was of short duration and may not have significantly affected the overall outcome for the complainant.” In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord’s offer of £50 compensation amounted to reasonable redress for its failure to keep the resident updated during the period of the repair.

Complaints handling

  1. The landlord’s complaint policy states that it will respond to stage one complaints within 10 working days and stage two complaints within 20 working days. The resident escalated her complaint on 23 October 2020, as she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s stage one response, however, she did not provide any specific reasons for this. The landlord did not respond to the resident’s escalation request, which prompted her to chase a response on 10 December 2020, 18 December 2020 and 18 January 2021, none of which the landlord responded to. Following correspondence with the resident, this service requested the landlord to escalate the complaint on 28 January 2022. The landlord then issued its stage two response on 2 March 2022. The landlord’s delayed response caused significant additional time and effort to the resident in pursuing the complaint. The landlord has advised that it did not receive any of the resident’s escalation requests. This service is unable to conclusively determine whether the email was received or not.
  2. There is a discrepancy between the timeline of events outlined in the landlord’s stage one and stage two responses, specifically the dates of repairs and vandalism being referenced as a cause of the damage in the stage one response. In its stage two response, the landlord stated that the housing officer that initially handled the complaint did not log the complaint onto the system, or upload any supporting evidence, however, they no longer worked for the landlord. The landlord should ensure that the information provided in complaint responses is accurate and based on the evidence it has available. This report has relied on the landlord’s repair records as contemporaneous evidence, so it has not impacted making a determination on the complaint. However, the landlord should ensure that it has clear, comprehensive records relating to repairs, communication and complaints which can be accessed by its complaints team. The landlord has recognised this failing in its stage two response and stated that it was not the standard of service it expected and further staff training would be provided regarding following its complaints procedure.
  3. The landlord offered £50 compensation for the delay in its stage two response and £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused due to the delay in escalating the complaint and the lack of information recorded regarding the complaint. In line with this service’s remedy guidance, awards of £50-£250 are appropriate in cases where the landlord has failed to meet service standards for actions and responses. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the offer of £250 compensation amounted to reasonable redress in the circumstances. It was also appropriate that the landlord acknowledged that its service could be improved and advised that further staff training would be provided regarding following the complaints procedure.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, and in the Ombudsman’s opinion, there was reasonable redress offered by the landlord for its service failure in respect of the complaints regarding its:
    1. response to the resident’s report of a communal door being unsecure;
    2. complaints handling.

Recommendations

  1. If it has not done so already, the landlord should reiterate its offer of £300 compensation, as outlined in its stage two complaint response.
  2. As suggested by the landlord, it should ensure it reviews its complaint handling procedure and provide additional staff training if required.
  3. The landlord should write to the resident to confirm its position regarding CCTV installation.