Notting Hill Genesis (202307594)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202307594

Notting Hill Genesis (NHG)

28 October 2024

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 resident’s reports of repairs reported within the property.
2. The resident’s reports of a fault with her hot water temperature.
3. The associated complaint.

Background

The resident has an assured non-shorthold tenancy with the landlord, a housing association, which started in April 2010. The landlord provided a head lease (document) which refers to the landlord as the tenant. This outlines the terms of the lease agreement with the superior landlord. An estate management company manages the block.
The property is described as a 2-bedroom flat on the third floor. The landlord has no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident or household members.
The resident contacted the landlord on 5 January 2022 and reported that her water was not heating up enough to run a bath. She said the management company investigated the repair that morning and advised that there was a supply of hot water to the property. They suggested that the repair was an internal fault within the property which the landlord should investigate and resolve. The landlord attended around 22 February 2022 and determined that it was an external fault which was referred back to the management company.
The resident raised a formal complaint on 13 April 2022 to the management company and copied the landlord into the email sent. She reported that she was still not getting sufficient supply of hot water, even after the repairs were carried out by the management company on 24 March 2022. She also raised concerns about the conduct of a contractor of the management company and their refusal to work on her heat interface unit (HIU).
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 28 April 2022 by phone and email. The management company also visited the property and carried out an investigation on 29 April 2022. It shared its findings with the resident on 9 May 2022 and advised her that the repairs would start on 23 May 2022. The resident confirmed to the management company in an email on 30 May 2022 that the issue had been resolved.
The landlord responded to the resident’s stage 1 complaint on 15 March 2023. It said the management company acknowledged there was a delay in resolving the hot water issue. This was because their contractor refused to carry out the repairs due to an argument with the resident and they had to find another company to do the works. The works had since been fully completed by another contractor, but it acknowledged that it should have supported the resident with communication regarding the repairs. It apologised for the inconvenience caused and offered the resident £250 in compensation.
The resident requested the escalation of her complaint to stage 2 on 27 March 2023. She said she was not happy with the amount offered by the landlord, as it failed to respond to her complaint on time, and due to the period of time she was without sufficient supply of hot water. The landlord responded on 16 May 2023. It found that there were service failures in how it managed the resident’s complaint and its communication. It revised its offer of compensation from £250 to £725 for its failure in communication, delay in raising other repairs and for the complaint handling. The £725 included the landlord’s offer of £150 for its handling of the resident’s reports about repairs, which will not be part of this investigation.
The resident referred the complaint to this Service in June 2023. She said the landlord failed to provide support and left her to liaise with the management company on her own. She also said that the landlord did not comment on her request for reimbursement of additional cost of electricity and some repairs remained unresolved.

Assessment and findings

The Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles are:
1. Be fair.
2. Put things right.
3. Learn from outcomes.
This Service will apply these principles when considering whether any redress is appropriate and proportionate for any maladministration or service failure identified.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, this service must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
Paragraph 42.a. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider 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.
The evidence shows that the resident requested various repairs by phone on 28 April 2022. These included her reports about cracked tiles, mouldy sealant around the bath and cracked skirting board in the living room and bedroom. This appears to be a service request which was not part of the resident’s stage 1 or stage 2 complaint. We have not seen evidence of any further communication regarding the repairs, requests for updates or her expressions of dissatisfaction regarding the repairs. The landlord apologised to the resident for the delay in completing the repairs and offered compensation (£150) for the inconvenience. It noted that the repairs were not part of the resident’s original complaint, but it applied discretion and incorporated it into its stage 2 response.
The response was however not a full assessment of its handling of the repairs. This Service will not include the resident’s complaint about various repairs in this investigation. This is in line with paragraph 42.a. of the Scheme. It is the Ombudsman’s opinion that the complaint has not fully exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints process. If the resident remains dissatisfied with its handling of the repairs, she should escalate it through the landlord’s complaints process.
For the above reasons, the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s handling of repairs reported within the property is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Scope of investigation

Paragraph 42.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, were brought to the Ombudsman’s attention normally more than 12 months after they exhausted the member’s complaints procedure. The Ombudsman notes from the evidence that the resident complained regarding the hot water temperature in March 2021. This complaint exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints process in July 2021. The resident was offered compensation and referred to this Service if she wished to pursue the matter. We have seen from the evidence that the resident did not report further concerns about her hot water until January 2022.
The resident did not escalate this matter to the Ombudsman, but she raised another complaint with the landlord around 13 April 2022, when she started to experience problems with her hot water again. In accordance with paragraph 42.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the resident’s historical complaint about the hot water temperature in her bathroom, will not be included in this investigation.
Paragraph 42.j. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint-handling body.
The resident’s property is within a building which is managed by a management company (MC), who is responsible for the external repairs or other communal repairs. In addition to the resident’s complaints to the landlord, she also raised complaints against the MC regarding the difficulties she was experiencing with her supply of hot water (temperature) between January 2022 and August 2022. They responded to the resident’s complaints and referred her to The Property Ombudsman Service in August 2022.
In accordance with paragraph 42. j. of the scheme, the resident’s complaint to the MC will not be included in this investigation. Our investigation will focus on the landlord’s handling of the issues reported. Any reference made to the complaint or their communication with the MC will be for reference purposes only.

The resident’s reports of a fault with hot water temperature

The landlord’s repairs policy states that it is responsible for the maintenance of the existing central heating, water heaters and fires where it has provided them. The landlord informed this Service that the water system in the block is managed by a centralised HIU and secondary system, which is managed by the MC.
We have seen from the evidence that the MC contacted the landlord on 12 January 2022 and asked it to carry out an inspection of the pipes and fittings.The resident said, in her complaint dated 13 April 2022, also copied to the landlord, that the landlord did not attend until 22 February 2022. This was more than 5 weeks after the MC asked it to investigate the source of the problem to her hot water temperature.
The landlord’s repairs policy categorises a lack of hot water supply as an emergency repair and one which it would aim to attend within 4 to 24 hours. While it is noted that the resident stated she did have some supply, but it was not hot enough, the landlord should have endeavoured to investigate the problem urgently. Failure to do so would have caused the resident some distress and frustration.
The landlord’s repairs policy further states that it will pass on the details of repairs to the relevant party and liaise with them to ensure its satisfactory completion. This is for properties for which the responsibility to carry out the repair does not lie with either the resident or its organisation. The Ombudsman notes that the resident and MC communicated regarding the repairs between March 2022 and May 2022. This included her request for updates on the repairs and an expression of dissatisfaction (also copied to the landlord by email) on 13 April 2022.
The landlord appeared to have learned from its errors when it contacted the MC on 6 May 2022 for information on how it had dealt with the resident’s complaint. It said it had received a similar complaint from the resident, to the one sent to the MC. However, there is not sufficient evidence of attempts on the landlord’s part to intervene or assist the resident on the matter. The landlord did not adhere to its promise to work in partnership with other external parties to resolve the resident’s concerns. This is not appropriate.
We have seen from the evidence that the resident and the MC continued to liaise on the repairs and works were carried out in May 2022. The MC contacted the resident on 25 and 27 May 2022 to confirm that the repairs had successfully resolved the issue. It asked the landlord for assistance in reaching the resident as it had not received a response to its emails. The resident confirmed in an email to the MC dated 30 May 2022 that the issue had been fully resolved. However, from the evidence seen, the landlord did not contact the resident to find out if the issue had been satisfactorily resolved. This is not an example of good customer care. The landlord’s policy states that it aims to work with a superior landlord and to communicate on any responsive repair issue and work closely with the managing agents to ensure prompt service delivery of responsive repairs to residents is in place. The landlord failed to do so in practice.
When the resident first reported the problem with her hot water to the landlord on 5 January 2022 she asked it to support her, take responsibility, and deal with the matter proactively. She said she did not want to get caught in the middle of the MC and the landlord. We have seen from the evidence that the resident was left to manage all communication on this matter with minimum assistance from the landlord. The landlord delayed its investigation of the source of the problem by over a month when it was asked to visit the property by the MC in January 2022. The Ombudsman also notes that the landlord failed to intervene when the resident expressed concerns around poor customer services by the MC’s contractors in April 2022. This would have partly contributed to the delay in resolving the hot water issues, causing the resident some inconvenience.
The landlord realised its mistakes and it apologised to the resident. However, this was more than 12 months after the resident initially contacted it for assistance. This is unreasonable. This Service notes that the resident’s hot water temperature was resolved approximately 7 months prior to the landlord’s response, so there is no evidence of any significant detriment after the repairs were carried out. In its stage 2 response to the resident dated 16 May 2023, the landlord said:
1. It should have taken more responsibility and contacted the MC directly, as this would have reduced the delays in resolving the problem with her water temperature.
2. The resident may have been affected as result of contractor works that were undertaken to other flats in the block (valves removed from several HIU’s) which led to lack of pressure to her bath and lack of hot water for several months.
3. It should have taken more responsibility and supported her with her communications with the managing agent when their contractors refused to attend the property. It had since confirmed with the MC that another contractor would be completing any future repairs to the HIU.
4. Although the issue was the MC’s responsibility to repair, a closer working relationship with them to establish the fault would have helped the resident and reduced the delay. It had let the resident down as it failed to do this.
5. It had made improvements to monitoring reports which allow managers to review cases that have not been responded to.
In addition to the landlord’s acknowledgement of its failures and its apology to the resident, it also offered £325 as redress. Overall, the landlord has learned from its errors, and it has taken steps to put things right in accordance with its compensation policy. Its offer of compensation is also in line with this Service’s compensation guide for cases where maladministration has been determined. The Ombudsman is therefore satisfied that the landlord has offered reasonable redress in its handling of the resident’s reports of a fault with her hot water temperature.

The associated complaints

The landlord has 2 stage complaints handling process. It will aim to respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. Apart from the resident’s stage 1 complaint (copied to the landlord on 13 April 2022), it said it also received a complaint from her on 19 April 2022. We have not seen a copy of the complaint, but the landlord said it was regarding the hot water temperature. Although the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint, it failed to provide a response as set out in its complaints policy. The landlord said it had closed the resident’s complaint in May 2022, because it was the MC’s responsibility to deal with the repairs. It said the MC had also agreed to respond to the resident’s complaint. If this was the landlord’s decision, it should have informed the resident and offered her the chance to request the escalation of the complaint. The landlord failed to do so. This would have caused the resident some frustration.
However, following a meeting with the resident on 22 July 2022, the landlord agreed to reopen the complaint and provide a formal response. The landlord did not uphold its commitment despite the emails sent by the resident on 10 February 2023 and 9 March 2023 (also copied to this Service) asking for the response. The landlord responded to the complaint on 15 March 2023 approximately 11 months after the resident raised the complaint. This is not appropriate.
The landlord apologised to the resident for the delay in responding to the complaint. It acknowledged that the complaint had been left unanswered for a long time and offered compensation of £75. The landlord’s compensation policy states that it will offer up to £250 where there has been a serious service delivery failure over a period of time which has caused a significant level of distress and inconvenience to the resident. While the amount offered was in line with its compensation policy, the landlord should have considered the resident’s individual circumstances and the impact of not responding to her complaint for many months. The amount offered did not reflect the time and trouble, frustration, and inconvenience to the resident.
The landlord repeated the same error, as its stage 2 response was also delayed. The resident requested the escalation of her complaint on 27 March 2023, but the landlord did not respond until 16 May 2023. This was approximately 44 working days after the complaint was received, when it should have responded within 20 working days in accordance with its policy. The landlord admitted in the stage 2 response that it had let the resident down again. The overall delays in handling the resident’s complaint would have caused her some distress and frustration. This would have delayed her escalating the complaint to this Service.
The landlord apologised to the resident and said that it had missed many opportunities to put this right. It revised its offer of compensation from £75 to £250. The Ombudsman considers this to be a reasonable offer considering that the issue she complained about had been resolved by the MC. The landlord conducted a further internal review of its handling of the resident’s complaint. It said:
1. It had put in place a process to track its stage 1 and stage 2 complaints.
2. An escalation process had been implemented for any call backs and complaints not responded to within its agreed time scales.
However, the landlord failed to address all the points raised by the resident in her complaint. The resident said she had incurred additional costs in her electricity bills because she was using her stove to heat up water during the winter months. The landlord did not address this part of her complaint. This is not in line with this Service’s complaint handling code. It states that landlords must address all points raised in the complaint definition and provide clear reasons for any decisions, referencing the relevant policy, law, and good practice where appropriate. Failure to address this point would have caused the resident some frustration. Based on the above, there is evidence of service failure in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 42.a the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s handling of repairs reported within the property is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered reasonable redress in its handling of the resident’s reports of a fault with her hot water temperature.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders

The landlord should within 4 weeks of the date of this report:
1. Pay the resident £50 for the frustration and time and trouble for its complaint handling.
2. Contact the resident to discuss her concerns about additional expenses incurred on her electricity charges, during the period she experienced problems with her hot water temperature. It should consider whether any further compensation should be awarded to the resident and respond to the resident in writing. A copy of the response should be provided to this Service.
3. Compensation awarded should be paid directly to the resident.

Recommendation

Pay the resident the £575 it offered if it has not yet been paid to her.