Notting Hill Genesis (202339571)

Background

1. The resident lives with her family in a 2 bedroom flat in a block. The property is situated directly under the roof of the building. The managing company is also the freeholder of the building, and the landlord is a leaseholder. The resident raised concerns about a leak in her property which the landlord investigated and established to be the managing agent’s responsibility. She also raised concerns with damp and mould in the property and explained that she believed there was damage to her flooring. The landlord completed remedial works, but the resident remained dissatisfied with the works, and the level of compensation offered.
2. Both the resident and her partner have communicated around this complaint however for the sake of clarity we may refer to them as “the resident” and “she” or “her” throughout this report.

What the complaint is about

3. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. A leak in the property, handling of remedial works, damp, and mould.
   2. The complaint.

Our decision (determination)

4. We found that there was:
   1. Maladministration with the landlord’s handling of a leak in the property, handling of remedial works, damp, and mould.
   2. Service failure with the complaint handling.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

A leak in the property, handling of remedial works, damp, and mould

5. The landlord was proactive in investigating the leak and once the root cause was established it engaged actively with the insurance company and the managing agent to complete repairs. The landlord appropriately identified delays and issues with the standard of work and offered proportionate compensation. It took reasonable steps to resolve outstanding repairs.
6. While the landlord appropriately identified the majority of its failings, in relation to the resident’s pest infestation concerns, it did not take any action. It has not demonstrated that it investigated or looked to resolve the issue. However, it offered compensation to address the impact on the resident.
7. During the landlord’s investigation of the leak in the block, the resident told the landlord about damp and mould concerns on the walls and ceiling at her property. However, the landlord has not shown it investigated or took any meaningful interim action.

Complaint handling

8. The landlord failed to properly address all of the resident’s concerns with its complaint handling.

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 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.

9. The resident explained that the issue went back to 2018. However, the landlord considered and found that there was no evidence to support this. It also explained that it was only looking back from October 2022. We have seen no evidence that the leak in 2018 was related to the leak currently complained about. Additionally, the resident raised her formal complaint in November 2023 and in the interest of fairness and due to limited availability of evidence we will look only at the events leading to the complaint. As such our investigation will focus on issues from October 2022 onwards, including any actions the landlord committed to as part of its final response in January 2024.
10. The landlord explained in its stage 1 response on 6 December 2023 that the repairs to the structure of the building, including the roof were the managing company’s responsibility rather than its own. The managing company is an extension of the landlord, and we can investigate how the landlord looked to ensure the managing agent completed the repairs and its communications around this with them.

Investigation of the leak

11. The evidence shows that there were delays in the landlord’s handling of the leaks in the resident’s property. Whilst unnecessary delays are unreasonable, leaks can be difficult to diagnose, and the landlord in this instance has explained the complexity of this situation in its response. In this instance, there was more than 1 leak source, and the different parties involved in the management of the building had different repair responsibilities. It is not disputed that the landlord investigated the leak concerns from October 2022.
12. It considered a leak reported by her neighbour resolved in November 2022. However, 2 months later a leak occurred in the resident’ property. She reported water ingress on 21 February 2023. Its contractor attended on 9 March 2023 to investigate and found the source of the leak was the roof. Water travelled down the void between the external wall and the resident’s property. As the repair was the managing company’s responsibility, the landlord notified them on 13 March 2023. The managing company’s contractor then completed the works on 20 April 2023.
13. We have seen evidence that between 13 March 2023 and 20 April 2023, the landlord actively chased a response from the managing company but did not receive one until 21 April 2023. This was after it had threatened legal action on 18 April 2023. Its actions were appropriate in ensuring that they completed the repairs. However, this was outside of the 20 working day timeframes provided within its repairs policy for the completion of such works. The landlord appropriately recognised that the investigation of the leak took 5 months, apologised for this, and offered £250 compensation.

Damp and mould

14. During this period the resident said in her formal complaint that she had reported concerns of damp and mould to the landlord. She said she had seen mould growth, peeling and bubbling paint on various walls, and the ceiling. She explained that she had wiped mould off damp walls. The degree and severity of the mould on the walls and ceilings of the property is unclear. We have seen no evidence of these reports, asides from within the resident’s complaint. Nor have we seen any evidence that the landlord took any appropriate action to establish the extent of the issue within the property given it was aware of the leaks.
15. We have seen no evidence that it completed any damp and mould surveys. It also did not provide us with any damp and mould records, to show the actions it took around damp and mould, raising concerns with its record keeping. We would expect the landlord to take prompt action in line with its policy to determine any actions it needed to take to rectify the situation, whether such actions were temporary or permanent. It has not evidenced that it did, and this was inappropriate.

Remedial works, standard of works

16. To address the damage to the resident’s property, resulting from the leak, the landlord completed a joint visit with the managing company, and a loss adjuster provided through its insurance company on 5 May 2023. The loss adjuster requested 2 quotes from contractors for the works, which they agreed on 28 June 2023. The necessary works to the resident’s property then did not begin until 2 October 2023, over 3 months after they agreed the quote which was inappropriate.
17. The landlord stated in its response that the reason for the delay was due to staffing issues, and the property needing time to dry. There is however no evidence that it explained this to the resident prior to its complaint response. This was inappropriate and raises issues with its communication with the resident. It would have been reasonable for it to have provided an explanation prior to its complaint response.
18. The resident told the landlord in her complaint that she had concerns around pests in the property, which was due to the openings in the walls made during the investigation of the issue and this  had worsen due to the start of remedial works delay. She also told the landlord she had ants and moisture flies which came from under the flooring and also in the bathroom. The landlord has not evidenced that it took any action around the resident’s concern, and this was inappropriate. If the complaint was the first instance of the resident reporting the issue, we would expect the landlord to communicate this was a service request and then look to resolve the issue. Instead, it simply offered compensation around the issue, and it appears the issue remained outstanding inappropriately.
19. The resident’s complaint suggests that this was not the first time she reported it. She also reported the issue to the landlord on 12 March 2023 in an email, explaining it had worsened following water ingress. The landlord provided us with no records around the resident’s reports asides from this report, and her complaint, raising concerns with its record keeping. This shows poor investigation into the resident’s concerns. Its records show that the resident raised the issue again, following the end of its complaints process, and in August 2024 when it began to act to resolve the issue.
20. However, in its responses the landlord acknowledged that the delay in starting the remedial works was because of its contractor’s failing and addressed the impact reported by the resident. It offered £250 compensation.
21. There were further delays during the actual works. The evidence shows that there was some discussion around the agreed scope of works as the resident looked to include works to her hallway floor which were amended by the landlord’s contractors and the loss adjustor.
22. From the evidence provided, following the leak, the landlord’s contractor attended the resident’s property. They inspected the flooring to see if there was any damage. They advised the landlord that after inspecting the timber floor, in their opinion, the floor was in a good condition and there was no evidence of mould or damp.
23. The resident disputed this after visiting the property to inspect following the contractor’s visit. She provided photographs of black marks and asked for the contractor to investigate the kitchen flooring. The landlord appropriately referred the resident’s concerns to the contractor who confirmed the marks were water marks, did not require further action, but said they could take cautionary measures by spraying the underside of the floor and along the battens with a preserver in the areas that were accessible.
24. The contractor also explained that taking up the kitchen flooring was not within the original scope of works. Doing so also required them to take up the flooring which would lead to damage. We have seen no evidence that the landlord explained this to the resident, and this is another instance of concern with its communication. It would have been appropriate for it to do so. It did however go back to the loss adjuster around the works, and they refused the application.
25. The landlord relied on the expert advice and evidence of its contractor around the state of the flooring to reach its position, and it is entitled to do so. This was also approved by the loss adjustor and the landlord confirmed it with the resident in its response. The evidence showed no evidence of damp or mould which would warrant the contractor taking up the flooring in the kitchen to determine whether there was an issue or look to affect any treatment. Its actions were appropriate.
26. The landlord however acknowledged that the above concerns about the flooring caused some delays and the delay affected the length of time the resident was living in the decant. It attempted to put things right by arranging the further extension for the decant and ensuing the quick move back to the property was with least disruption to the resident. Furthermore, it offered to cover any loss of food from the fridge caused by the quick move back to the property and additional offer of £350 for the disruption in the resident’s temporary move. These were all reasonable steps to take. 
27. The resident further raised concerns about a number of the works completed by the landlord’s contractor in her complaint. We have seen no evidence around the standard of the works completed, nor have we seen any records of the repairs, raising concerns with its record keeping. As such cannot comment on this. However, the landlord offered the resident compensation, or for the resident to allow its contractor to reattend to put things right. At stage 2 the landlord offered £300 compensation for the resident having to return to an unprepared flat.
28. The evidence also suggests that the resident accepted for the landlord’s contractor to reattend to complete works or to improve their standard. The landlord said in its stage 2 response that its contractor would attend to resolve the outstanding remedial works the resident raised concerns with.
29. The evidence provided suggests this remained outstanding until at least 7 August 2024, 7 months after the stage 2 response. This falls significantly outside the 28 day timeframes in its policy for completion of such works. We have however seen no evidence of what led to the delays, raising further concerns with the landlord’s record keeping. Should the resident have any further concerns around these works, she may wish to raise a new complaint about it.

Conclusion

30. To address the failings found, the landlord offered the resident compensation of £1,250. When considered individually, the landlord’s offers fall within the medium and high impact categories within its compensation policy. Each offer also falls within a finding of maladministration within our remedies guidance. Its total offer for the issue is within the realm of a finding of severe maladministration. These are awards that we make for the most serious of issues and show that the landlord recognised the high impact caused to the resident. This is clear through the delays suffered, need for a temporary move to address the issue, and the need to raise concerns around the quality of the remedial works.
31. Despite its adequate offer of compensation for the failures it had identified we cannot ignore its failure established in this report to act around the resident’s pest control concerns, failure to take any interim measures in relation to the damp and mould within the resident’s property during the delays and before the remedial works started. Additionally, we identified some poor record keeping and communication with the resident around the issue. Its record keeping directly contributed to its failure to take adequate measures to ensure it resolved the the pest control issue, and the resident has raised the issue again in August 2024.

32. The landlord provided its complaint response at stage 1 within the 10 working day timeframe within its policy. It provided its stage 2 response 4 working days outside of the timeframe within its policy, as it says it will respond within 20 working days of escalation. However there is no evidence of significant detriment caused to the resident by the delay.
33. The landlord did not address the issue the resident raised about the temperature at the property, nor did it address the resident’s concerns about why the works its contractor said it could complete to safeguard the wood had not taken place. We acknowledge and appreciate that the resident raised many issues, within the complaint. However, its failure to respond to all aspects of the resident’s complaint was unreasonable.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

34. The landlord should ensure it has accurate records of repairs, and reports of concerns raised by a resident. This would help it track and ensure it has responded to resident’s concerns appropriately. The landlord did not provide full information on repairs and communication in response to our information request and this considerably affected our investigation.

Communication

35. The landlord showed that it tried to keep the resident updated around the repairs and looked to communicate with other parties involved with the necessary works to seek updates. There were however still arears to improve such as ensuring it explains the reasons for any delays to residents at the first opportunity.