Notting Hill Genesis (202316732)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202316732

Notting Hill Genesis (NHG)

8 January 2025

 

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 handling of:
    1. Repairs to the heating and hot water system at the property.
    2. The resident’s complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is the assured tenant of a 4-bedroom house. In August 2022, she reported a fault with the heating and hot water system at the property. Despite several attendances, the problem persisted and on 7 September 2022 the resident complained to the landlord about its contractor’s handling of the situation.
  2. In the meantime, repairs were required to the boiler and the back up immersion heater and these were completed on 20 September 2022. However, the following day, the resident reported that some of the radiators were now coming on with the hot water despite heat not being needed due to the weather.
  3. The contractors made further attendances due to this ongoing issue and because the thermostat was malfunctioning and shutting the heating down at inappropriate times (when it was required). The hot water and boiler remained inconsistent in their operation with other issues arising too. The various problems were resolved on 16 December 2022.
  4. In its stage 1 complaint response, dated 30 November 2022, the landlord agreed there had been unacceptable delays in the repairs being resolved. It apologised for this and offered compensation, totalling £300. On 28 February 2023, the contractor also offered compensation of £310 which the landlord confirmed was additional to its offer. This made a total of £610.
  5. The resident had already, however, requested escalation of the complaint on 6 December 2022 and a Stage 2 response was given on 16 June 2023. The landlord accepted that there had been failings in the service its contractor had offered. It explained that it had ceased its contractual arrangement with the contractor due to its poor performance, for which it apologised. The landlord increased its compensation offer to £505 but did not state whether this included, or was additional to, the offer of £310 made by the contractor.
  6. The resident remained dissatisfied with this outcome and referred the matter to this Service for investigation. The resident wants reassurances that the same situation cannot happen again. She wants the landlord to engage private contractors if its recognised one cannot fix a problem. The resident also wants increased compensation to include damages for injuries, pain, and suffering.

Assessment and findings

Scope of Investigation

  1. This Service is not a court of law. We cannot award damages for personal injuries, pain, and suffering. This is because we do not have the expertise to assess whether the landlord is to blame for an injury – known as ‘liability.’ Neither can we confirm whether the landlord’s actions or omissions caused the injury complained of – ‘causation.’ These are technical legal issues and are better dealt with by a court of law. This report will not, therefore, take such representations from the resident into account. We can, however, consider any distress or inconvenience caused to a resident by a landlord’s handling of tenancy issues and award compensation accordingly. This has been considered below.
  2. The repair being considered here commenced with a report to the landlord’s contractor in August 2022. Since then, the resident has asserted that there were problems before that historically and which should be considered. However, these problems were not included in the complaint made to the landlord on 7 September 2022.
  3. It is an underlying principle of our Scheme that issues should be raised with landlords through their internal complaints procedure before being referred for investigation. This is because landlords ought to be given the opportunity to put things right before they are potentially criticised for getting things wrong. It is possible the resident will say that complaints were made but not responded to. However, the complaint under investigation here, is the one made on 7 September 2022 and this report will concentrate on the issues raised within it.

Repairs to the heating and hot water system at the resident’s property

  1. There is no dispute that the landlord is responsible for the maintenance and repair of the heating and hot water system at this property. The way in which it commits to approaching such repairs is set out in its Responsive Repairs policy. That document states that the landlord divides repairs into 2 categories – “emergency” and “routine”. The definition of an emergency repair includes “heating (during October to March only) or hot water failure” which is then clarified further as needing to be “a serious failure” in nature.
  2. The policy states the landlord aims to attend an emergency repair within 4 hours with services restored within 24 hours. For routine issues, it commits to completing work within 20 working days “within reason”. The policy does envisage that sometimes an inspection may be required to ascertain what is necessary and that that process may extend the timetable.
  3. The resident has provided a detailed chronology to this Service setting out the course of events this repair took. The landlord is no longer in a working relationship with its contractor and has been unable to produce its records. Documentary evidence to verify the resident’s version of events is not available to this Service.
  4. However, it is apparent from the landlord’s complaint responses that the following is agreed by both sides. The repair which is the subject of the complaint was reported on 20 August 2022. The resident has told this Service that she had no heating or hot water for 5 weeks or until 20 September 2022 (30 days). The landlord accepted 32 days of no facilities in its stage 2 response. There is a broad consensus that there was a prolonged interruption to supply.
  5. The told this Service that between 20 September 2022 and 16 December 2022 neither the heating nor hot water was working properly. She stated that the thermostat was malfunctioning, and some radiators did not work. The resident also stated that she wants compensation for lack of facilities during this time, but her contacts also demonstrate that the loss during this latter period was not total or absolute – describing things as not working properly, rather than not working at all.
  6. The landlord accepted in its stage 2 response that there were further reports of failed services during this time and more attendances were made by its contractor. It has accepted that the issues were not fully resolved until 16 December 2022. Both sides refer to the resident having to use fan heaters and this shows an agreement that facilities were not what they should have been for at least some, if not all, of this period.
  7. The history of this matter shows that the resident’s loss of heating and hot water was not resolved within the time expected for an emergency repair. Problems of one sort or another continued for approximately 4 months. Even if it were to be suggested that this was not “a serious failure” and could be described as a routine repair, the time limit of 20 days for that more standard repair issue was substantially exceeded too.
  8. There were significant delays in completing the repairs. This was not appropriate, as it was not consistent with the landlord’s policy. This was a failure by the landlord.
  9. In identifying whether there has been maladministration, the Ombudsman considers both the events that initially prompted a complaint and the landlord’s response to those events through the operation of its complaints procedure. The extent to which a landlord has recognised and addressed any shortcoming and the appropriateness of any steps taken to offer redress are therefore as relevant as the original mistake or service failure. The Ombudsman will not make a finding of maladministration where the landlord has fully acknowledged any failings and taken reasonable steps to offer redress.
  10. In this case the landlord did acknowledge that its contractor had been responsible for significant delays. It accepted the service it had offered fell below the standard the resident was reasonably entitled to expect. Its decision to terminate its contractual relationship with that contractor was also significant. It was largely motivated by its poor performance in this case. That action demonstrates the landlord’s desire to avoid a similar situation arising again. It also shows that the landlord took the resident’s dissatisfaction seriously.
  11. The landlord also offered compensation. Its Compensation and Goodwill Gesture policy states that where the landlord’s service failure has caused the resident distress and inconvenience it can award a payment of up to £250. It adds that a higher level might be appropriate in cases of exceptional hardship.
  12. In addition, the policy provides for a payment linked to daily rent where facilities are not provided. In respect of heating, this amounts to 10% of daily rent after the first 48 hours but only applies from October to March – heating not being deemed essential during the spring and summer months. In respect of loss of hot water, the limited seasonal period does not apply.
  13. In its Stage 1 response dated 30 November 2022, the landlord offered compensation of £300 in total. It had calculated this as £150 for distress and inconvenience, £75 for extra electric costs in using the fan heaters, and £75 for 30 days compensation for no heating/hot water (32 days – 48 hours x 10% of daily rent = £2.47 per day).
  14. The resident rejected this and escalated the complaint. In the meantime, the contractor made its own offer of compensation of £310 which the landlord confirmed would be in addition to its offer, making a total of £610. This was not accepted and in its Stage 2 offer the landlord sought to increase its offer to £505. Whilst it did not state the £310 remained in addition to this it is reasonable to conclude it was because the landlord’s intention was to increase compensation overall. This would not have been achieved if the revised figure included the contractor’s amount.
  15. The landlord’s revised figure was made up of an increased payment for distress and inconvenience of £250. Given the repair still took a further fortnight to be resolved after the Stage 1 response stated it would be attended to the next day, a further £100 was then added to reflect that further delay. The landlord also increased its offer for additional electricity costs to £80 and the loss of facilities payment remained unaltered at £75. This totals the £505 referred to above.
  16. The resident takes the view that the figures for loss of facility and electricity only represent the initial period during which facilities were lost – that is from 20 August to 20 September 22. She wants similar compensation for the period from 21 September 22 to 16 December 22 inclusive. However, whilst it has been established that there were further problems that interrupted/affected the efficiency of facilities, according to the resident’s own statement of events (made to this Service), supplies of heat and hot water were not totally lost throughout that period.
  17. Under these circumstances the landlord might reasonably take that period into account when setting the payment offer for distress and inconvenience rather than applying the strict daily rate for total loss of facilities. Its offer in that case -which included the whole period – was £350 (£250 + £100) and which was above its highest rate intended to reflect exceptional hardship.
  18. As set out above, there is a lack of documentation in this case which makes it difficult to assessment exactly how the resident’s facilities were affected in the period between 20 September and 16 December 2022. A broad approach therefore must be taken. The landlord is a not-for-profit organisation with limited resources that it must allocate carefully.
  19. Given the resident was also to receive £310 from the contractor, the landlord’s overall offer of redress is found to be fair. Combined with its apology and removal of the contractor in question, the landlord offered reasonable redress for this complaint. No finding of maladministration or order for increased compensation will therefore be made.

 

The resident’s complaint

  1. The landlord’s Complaints & Compliments policy states it will provide a stage 1 complaint response within 10 working days of the complaint being logged. The policy states it will provide a stage 2 complaint response within 20 working days of the complaint being escalated.
  2. The resident raised a complaint on 7 September 2022. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 30 November 2022, which was 59 working days later. There is no evidence on which the Ombudsman could conclude that this delay was either reasonable or unavoidable. This was not appropriate as it was not consistent with the landlord’s policy.
  3. The resident escalated her complaint on 6 December 2022. In the absence of a response, the resident approached this Service for support. On 7 June 2023, this Service instructed the landlord to provide a stage 2 complaint response by 14 June 2023. This should not have been necessary. This was a significant failure by the landlord.
  4. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 16 June 2023, which was 131 working days after the resident escalated the complaint, and 2 working days after the deadline set by this service. This was not acceptable and was far outside the landlord’s policy. This was a significant failure by the landlord.
  5. The landlord might reasonably have offered the resident some compensation for that inconvenience. Its Compensation and Goodwill Gesture Policy sets out that up to £125 can be offered where a service failing has a “medium impact” on a resident – which is deemed to be the case here. An order has been made below for that upper limit of £125 compensation.
  6. Considering all the circumstances, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint. It significantly delayed responding to the resident’s complaints, which caused the resident an unreasonable delay in escalating her complaint to this Service.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made a reasonable offer of redress which satisfactorily resolves the resident’s complaint about its handling of repairs to the heating and hot water system at the property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must:
    1. pay the resident £125 compensation for the complaint handling failures identified in this report and the unreasonable delay caused to the resident in escalating her complaint to this Service
    2. provide evidence of this payment to the Ombudsman

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should pay the resident the £815 previously offered if it has not already done so. This is comprised of £505 offered by the landlord, and £310 offered by its contractor. The finding of reasonable redress is made on the basis that the landlord will pay the compensation already offered.