Notting Hill Genesis (202329123)

Background

1. The property is a flat in a block on an estate. In October 2023 the resident enquired about a recently received service charge account for the year 2022/23. She said there was a large deficit residents were being asked to pay, which was unreasonable and unfair. She reported the communal front door was regularly left insecure and this was allowing non-residents to trespass in the building and use drugs. She raised concerns about the cleaning and gardening services and said there had been periods where no service had been provided.
2. In December 2023 the landlord said it recalled the service charge deficit for 2022/23 and was reviewing the accounts to ensure this was correct. The following month it told the resident some parts to make the communal doors more secure were on back order and it was unable to complete the repairs until it received them. It said it was speaking to the Police about increasing patrols in the area.
3. In April 2024 the resident said the service charge had increased with no warning. The landlord suggested using some of the reserve fund to reduce the deficit for 2022/23. The resident did not agree to this and the landlord said it would reapply the deficit to her rent account within 5 working days. The following month it sent documents regarding the service charge increase for that year and said they had previously been sent to her by post. In May and June 2024 the landlord completed works to secure the communal doors.

What the complaint is about

4. The landlord’s:
   1. Response to the resident’s service charge enquiries.
   2. Handling of the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB).
   3. Handling of communal door repairs.
   4. Response to the resident’s concerns about cleaning and gardening services.
   5. Handling of the associated formal complaint.

Our decision (determination)

5. There was maladministration in the landlord’s:
   1. Response to the resident’s service charge enquiries.
   2. Handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
   3. Handling of communal door repairs.
   4. Response to the resident’s concerns about cleaning and gardening services.
   5. Handling of the associated formal complaint.
6. We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

7. There were delays and communication failures in the landlord’s response to the resident’s service charge enquiries. It answered the enquiries and offered redress for the failures but this was insufficient considering the extent of the delays and the number of failures identified.
8. There is no evidence the landlord responded to or managed the resident’s reports of ASB in line with its ASB policy.
9. The landlord was not at fault for the delay in it completing communal door repairs. However, there were communication failures that resulted in the resident not knowing what was happening or when the doors would be repaired.
10. The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about cleaning and gardening services was delayed. It lacked detail to reassure her it would take robust action to ensure a sustained improvement in the services.
11. The landlord did not handle the complaint in line with its complaints policy. It did not acknowledge the failures or offer redress.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

What we have not looked at

12. The resident has told us she has ongoing concerns about the service charge and cleaning and gardening services. We can only assess the landlord’s handling of these issues up to the stage 2 response. Any concerns the resident has about the landlord’s handling of these issues after this date must be raised as a separate complaint and referred to us once the landlord has responded via its internal process.

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

13. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s service charge enquiries, submitted on 8 October 2023, and said it would respond by 15 November 2023. It did not keep to this commitment, which was disappointing for the resident. It told her in December 2023 it had recalled the deficit to review the accounts. While not obligated to do so, this was appropriate and showed it was taking the resident’s concerns seriously. The landlord said it would complete the review by the end of March 2024. Again, it did not keep to this deadline. This caused further disappointment and damaged the resident’s trust in it.
14. The landlord told the resident on 8 April 2024 it intended to use the reserve fund to reduce the deficit. It was appropriate that it did not go ahead with this when the resident, and other residents, disagreed. Despite telling her it would add the deficit onto her account within 5 working days, it did not do so. This caused confusion as the resident said she believed the deficit had been written off as it was not added to her account as agreed.
15. In the stage 1 response the landlord said it would reissue the deficit charge. The resident challenged this and said the landlord was no longer able to collect this due to the length of time that had passed. We cannot determine whether charges are reasonable or if the landlord is entitled to enforce charges, as these are matters for the First Tier Tribunal (FTT) to consider. What we have considered is how the landlord communicated with the resident about this. As the landlord failed to keep to the deadlines it set, this was unreasonable and caused confusion.
16. The stage 1 response said the landlord had given the resident a service charge dispute form to complete with her concerns about the charges for the 2022/23 period. It said it had told her to return the form within 30 days but she had not done so. This was unreasonable as the resident submitted detailed enquiries in writing on 8 October 2023. The landlord should not have asked her to spend time and effort resubmitting them in another format as it had sufficient detail to respond to the enquiries.
17. The landlord did not respond to the resident’s service charge enquiries until September 2024, 11 months after they were first submitted. This was an unreasonable delay and meant the resident was left for an extended period with unanswered queries. She has challenged the landlord’s responses and said it has not properly explained the reason for the charges. As we cannot determine the reasonableness of a charge, we cannot comment further in respect of this. If the resident remains dissatisfied, she can raise her concerns with the FTT.
18. The resident said the landlord should have told residents before it overspent on the service charge budget. She believes it should consult with them before overspending so they can authorise it. We understand the resident’s concerns regarding the large overspend on the budget in 2022/23. However, the landlord is not required to update residents on the amount spent throughout the year, or consult about this. On a day to day basis this is not practical for landlords. Therefore, it is reasonable that the landlord does not tell residents during the year if it has overspent and does not consult about this.
19. In April 2024 the resident said the landlord increased the service charge with no notice. As part of its response to the complaint, the landlord said the notification about this was sent by post on 4 March 2024, using its external mailing provider. It said it had no control over the postal service so could not comment on her not receiving this. It confirmed it was satisfied it had sufficient proof of postage in accordance with its processes.
20. It is reasonable that the landlord is not responsible for the postal service and has no control over whether the documents were received. However, it is responsible for ensuring they were sent. As part of our investigation, we have asked the landlord to provide evidence that the documents were posted as stated, but it has not done so. This is a concern and means we cannot be satisfied it sent the documents as stated.
21. The resident made enquiries about the service charge budget for 2024/25 on 11 May 2024. In the stage 1 response the landlord said it aimed to respond by 13 September 2024. It did not meet this deadline and responded on 17 September 2024. This was 4 months after the enquiries were first submitted and too long. During the period of delay the landlord did not keep the resident sufficiently updated, which resulted in her spending time and effort chasing it. This caused further disappointment for the resident and loss of trust in the landlord.
22. The resident said the property management services were poor because of high staff turnover. She said there had been 4 different members of staff over a 12 month period with little or no communication about this. The landlord has no control over staff turnover, but it should ensure it has the correct processes in place to tell residents about staff changes and ensure detailed handovers are done. This minimises the risk of issues being missed or service failures occurring.
23. In the stage 1 and 2 responses the landlord acknowledged staff turnover had impacted service delivery. It gave details about its new structures and processes that it anticipated would lead to improvements, including better handover processes. This was appropriate to reassure the resident it was committed to improving its services.
24. The landlord acknowledged there were delays in it responding to the resident’s enquiries, apologised and offered £100 compensation. The landlord’s compensation policy says it will pay up to £100 for low impact failures. This is where service standards have not been met and the issue has taken slightly longer than expected causing some inconvenience to the resident. Considering the extent of the delay and the number of failures identified, the redress offered was insufficient.
25. The landlord should have offered compensation for medium impact failures, which its compensation policy says it will pay up to £250 for. This is where the service has markedly failed to meet standards and caused distress and inconvenience to the resident. As the landlord did not offer appropriate redress for its failures, a finding of maladministration is appropriate. We order it to apologise to the resident and pay her £250 compensation (inclusive of the £100 already offered).

26. The landlord’s ASB policy says examples of ASB include drug use, criminal damage and littering. As the resident reported non-residents were accessing the building to use drugs, cause damage and leave rubbish in communal areas, it was appropriate that the landlord dealt with her reports as ASB.
27. The landlord has not provided any records of ASB cases for the resident. It is not clear if this is because they do not exist or it has just not provided them. Regardless, this is a concern and has impacted our ability to investigate the matter. The landlord must keep detailed records so it can account for its actions and decisions to residents and us, where required. It has not done that in this case, so we cannot be satisfied it took reasonable action in response to the resident’s reports, or dealt with them in line with its ASB policy.
28. The people causing the ASB reported by the resident were unknown non-residents. This presented challenges for the landlord being able to address and resolve the issues. It told the resident it had been in contact with the Police and asked them to increase patrols in the area. This was appropriate considering the nature of the reports. It was also in line with its ASB policy which says it will adopt a multi-agency approach to tackling ASB. We have not seen evidence of when the landlord did this or how regularly it was in contact with the Police. This means we cannot assess if it acted in a timely manner or if the level and frequency of contact were reasonable.
29. The landlord said it flagged the block to its repairs hub because of the increase in ASB so that communal door repairs were treated as a priority. This was logical to ensure the security of the block. However, as the communal doors were not secure between October 2023 and June 2024, it should have considered any interim measures it could implement to increase the security of the building.
30. The landlord fitted a temporary lock on the bike store door in February 2024. This was appropriate to prevent unauthorised access. However, this was 4 months after the doors were broken and should have been done sooner. The landlord said in the stage 1 response that it installed a temporary measure to secure the bin store door as well, but we have not seen evidence of what this was or when this was done. Therefore, we cannot assess if this was reasonable. Similarly, there is no evidence the landlord considered or implemented any other interim measures to ensure the security of the block. This was distressing for the resident and she said the continued presence of the unknown people caused her to feel unsafe.
31. The landlord’s ASB policy says it will complete a risk assessment and develop an action plan with residents who report ASB. We have seen no evidence it did either in this case. The landlord has subsequently told us it did not complete a risk assessment as it believed the actions it had taken were sufficient and because of the type of ASB reported. The landlord’s policy does not specify that it will only complete risk assessments for certain types of ASB, implying it will do this in all cases.
32. The landlord is entitled to decide that a risk assessment is not required and document this. However, we have not seen any evidence that this was considered and decided at the time, or what actions it had taken to justify this not being required. The resident told the landlord she did not feel safe because of the ASB. Based on this, it should have completed a formal risk assessment and documented this, as well as agreeing an action plan to address the behaviour and manage any risk. Its failure to do so left the resident feeling unsupported over a period of approximately 8 months, which was upsetting for her.
33. We find there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB. We order it to apologise to the resident and pay her £300 compensation. This is in line with the landlord’s compensation policy for high impact failures that have been over a period of time and caused significant distress and inconvenience to the resident.

34. The resident’s lease agreement says the landlord will maintain, repair and renew all communal doors in the building. The resident complained that the communal doors were broken, leaving the block insecure from October 2023. The landlord confirmed in the stage 1 response that new parts were installed in June 2024 to increase the security of the block. This was around 8 months after the resident said the doors were broken.
35. The landlord’s repairs policy says where it identifies improvement works are needed, it will communicate with the resident on the timeframe for this. In early January 2024 the landlord told the resident the parts needed to complete the works were on back order and it could not complete them until it received these. In the stage 1 response it acknowledged delays in completing the works but said this was outside its control due to the availability of the parts and labour. While frustrating for the resident, the landlord had no control over the availability of parts and so any delay as a result of this was not attributable to it.
36. Where repairs are delayed, the landlord should keep residents updated on progress and tell them when it expects to complete them. In this case, the landlord said in early January 2024 it was asking its contractor for a timeframe of when the works would begin so it could tell residents. Despite making this commitment, there is no evidence it told the resident when it expected to complete the repairs or that it sent regular updates during the period of delay. This was frustrating for the resident and resulted in her chasing for updates and ultimately raising her formal complaint.
37. The landlord said it completed temporary repairs to some of the doors in February 2024. While positive, this was nearly 4 months after they were broken and should have been done sooner. The landlord told the resident on 8 January 2024 it would temporarily secure the doors that week, but did not. It was a further 3 weeks before it did this. This was too long considering the doors were insecure and the resident had reported unknown people accessing the building to use drugs.
38. We find there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of communal door repairs. While it was not at fault for the delay, there were failures in its communication. It should have provided regular proactive updates. Its failure to do so meant the resident did not know what was happening and left her feeling it was not taking the matter seriously.
39. The landlord also delayed in temporarily securing some of the doors. It should have done this sooner and progressed this with more urgency. We order the landlord to apologise to the resident and pay her £200 compensation. This is in line with the landlord’s compensation policy for medium impact failures.

40. The landlord has confirmed it is responsible for providing communal cleaning and gardening services to the block and estate. When the resident raised concerns about the quality of these services in October 2023, there is no evidence the landlord did anything to investigate or address this. It was only when the resident raised her formal complaint 9 months later that it addressed her concerns.
41. The landlord’s stage 1 response said prior to July 2024 the cleaning and gardening services had not received poor scores when inspected. We asked the landlord for evidence of the inspections and scores prior to July 2024, but it has not provided this. This is a concern and means we cannot be satisfied it had been inspecting or reviewing the standard of service as stated or the outcome of this.
42. The landlord confirmed in the stage 1 response that it had recently walked around the block and estate with the resident regarding her concerns. This was appropriate and showed it was taking them seriously. The landlord said it had identified issues and was following up with its contractor. This was appropriate and in line with its estate management policy. This says where a complaint is made about the standard of service, it will raise the matter in the first instance with the responsible contractor and request they rectify the issue as soon as possible.
43. While appropriate to raise this with the contractor, the landlord did not give any specific detail about what actions would be taken to improve the standard of service. It also did not say how it would monitor this going forward to ensure there was a sustained improvement. This means the resident was not reassured that things would improve.
44. The resident reported dead plants on the estate in April 2024 and the landlord said it had contacted its contractor. Despite this, when the resident escalated her complaint 4 months later she said the dead plants had not been removed. This was disappointing for her and suggests the landlord either did not contact its contractor or the contractor failed to act. Either way, this is a concern and the lack of follow up by the landlord means this issue was left unresolved.
45. The resident raised concerns about a private garden on the estate that was overgrown. The landlord said this was not included in grounds maintenance contract. This was reasonable as this was a private residence and the grounds maintenance contract only covers communal areas. The landlord said in the stage 2 response that the resident of that property had done their own works and if there were further issues it would contact them to remind them to maintain the garden. This was appropriate.
46. There was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about cleaning and gardening services. We order the landlord to apologise to the resident and pay her £150 compensation. This is in line with the landlord’s compensation policy for medium impact failures where the service has markedly failed to meet service standards.

47. The landlord’s complaints policy defines a complaint as an expression of dissatisfaction about the standard of service, actions, or lack of action by the landlord affecting an individual resident or group of residents. An expression of dissatisfaction does not need to include the word complaint to be handled in line with its policy.
48. The resident expressed dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of these issues on 2 January 2024, and on at least 5 further occasions between January and June 2024. Despite this, the landlord did not raise a formal complaint until our intervention in July 2024. This was not in line with its complaints policy and suggests a lack of staff awareness about identifying complaints.
49. We therefore order the landlord to deliver training to all front line staff on how to identify a complaint. We will consider this order complied with if the landlord can provide evidence that training of this nature has been delivered in the last 12 months.
50. The landlord’s complaints policy says it will acknowledge stage 1 and 2 complaints within 5 working days. It will respond at stage 1 within 10 working days of the complaint being logged and within 20 working days at stage 2.
51. We have seen no evidence the landlord acknowledged the stage 1 complaint, in contravention of its complaints policy. The landlord sent the stage 1 response in 15 working days, over the committed response time set out in its policy.
52. The landlord acknowledged the stage 2 complaint on 5 September 2024, 10 working days after the complaint was escalated. This was over the 5 working day committed timescale. The landlord sent the stage 2 response in 8 working days, in line with the committed response time set out in its policy.
53. The landlord’s responses were detailed and addressed all of the issues raised by the resident. However, it failed to consider its complaint handling and did not acknowledge any of the identified failures or offer redress. Therefore, a finding of maladministration is appropriate. We order the landlord to apologise and pay the resident £100 compensation. This is in line with the landlord’s compensation policy for low impact failures.

Learning

54. The landlord should have processes in place to manage staff changes that minimise the risk of service failures occurring. This should include notifying residents about changes and detailed handover processes.
55. The landlord should complete a risk assessment and agree an action plan for all reports of ASB in line with its ASB policy. If it concludes this is not required, it must clearly document this at the time with reasons.
56. The landlord should adopt a multi-agency approach to tackling ASB, as it did in this case.
57. The landlord should consider practical solutions to address ASB issues in blocks at the earliest opportunity. This is particularly important if the people causing ASB are unknown non-residents, limiting the landlord’s ability to take action.
58. Where residents raise concerns about cleaning and gardening services, the landlord should take timely action to investigate and address these. This can include inspecting the areas with the resident, as it did in this case. The landlord should liaise with contractors and follow up to make sure services improve in the long term.
59. The landlord should raise a complaint where a resident expresses dissatisfaction about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by the landlord. It should not expect residents to use the word complaint for one to be raised.
60. The landlord should acknowledge and respond to complaints in line with the timescales set out in its policy. It should assess its complaint handling as part of complaints. Where there have been failures, it should acknowledge these and offer redress in line with its compensation policy.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

61. There are gaps in the landlord’s records that have prevented us from fully assessing its actions. It is not clear if this is because the records do not exist or because it failed to provide them to us. The landlord should keep detailed records, including evidence of documents sent by post, repair records, estate inspection outcomes and ASB reports. It should provide these to us for our investigations. This will ensure it can account for its actions and decisions to residents and us, where required.

Communication

62. We have identified failures in the landlord’s communication for a number of the issues investigated. We encourage the landlord to consider all the failures and access learning via our centre for learning on communication.
63. The landlord should respond to service charge enquiries in a timely manner. If it cannot keep to deadlines it must tell the resident and give an updated estimate for when it expects to be able to respond.
64. Where repairs are delayed the landlord should tell residents and send regular proactive updates. It should provide an estimated timeframe for completion and consider any temporary repairs it can do in the interim at the earliest opportunity.