Notting Hill Genesis (202342604)

Background

1. The property is a one-bedroom, top floor flat. There are 3 flats below, one on each floor. The resident has lived there since 1993.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noisy pipes.
3. We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noisy pipes.
5. The landlord offered reasonable redress for its complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

6. We found that:
   1. The landlord made numerous efforts to identify and resolve the cause of the noise.
   2. Once it believed the issue was resolved, the landlord stopped communicating with the resident despite the problem being ongoing.
   3. There was a delay in the landlord providing its stage 2 response, but it then recognised this with an appropriate remedy.

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.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

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.

7. The resident first reported the noise of banging pipes in January 2023. The landlord was responsive and its contractors attended the building numerous times between March and August 2023. Efforts were made to find the cause of the noise, in the property and the other 3 flats in the building.
8. There was difficulty accessing the flat directly below the resident (Flat C) which meant investigations could not be completed. The landlord used its forced entry procedure to gain access to Flat C in January 2024. This showed commitment to locating the issue.
9. In its stage 2 response the landlord acknowledged it could have forced entry to Flat C more swiftly. It offered £250 compensation for the time taken, which was appropriate.
10. The landlord had checked the other flats and ruled them out of being the source of the noise. When Flat C was inspected the contractor identified an issue and it was repaired. This was positive, but the resident reported that the noise returned the following week.
11. Through her own monitoring and record keeping, the resident believed the noise was coming from Flat B. The landlord’s contractors visited Flat B numerous times and it was identified on 28 May 2024 that it needed to have a shock arrester fitted on the pipes to stop them vibrating. Flat B is owned by a leaseholder and so is not the responsibility of the landlord. This meant the landlord could only inspect and advise, it could not carry out the repairs.
12. We do not know if Flat B’s owner completed this repair. The noise is still occurring regularly and causing distress and inconvenience to the resident. This means that either the repair was not done or it was a different issue that still needs to be identified and resolved.
13. The landlord took steps to address the problem and believed it was identified in May 2024. However, since then, it has not communicated sufficiently with the resident who has reported the issue is ongoing. The landlord does not have responsibility for completing the repair but it has an ongoing obligation to the resident who is negatively impacted by the noise. The fact the resident has not had meaningful communication about the current position or next steps is a failure in service.
14. We order the landlord to provide an update to the resident with an explanation of what has happened since its last contractor inspection and an action plan of what will happen next. This should include timescales.
15. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £250 compensation as offered at stage 2 for the delay in repair investigations. This sum is in line with our remedies guidance for failings that have adversely affected the resident.

16. The first stage 1 response was provided 20 working days after the complaint was made. This was slightly over the landlord’s 10 working day target timescale. The content was sufficient to explain what had been done to find the noise. It appropriately listed next steps to identify the issue.
17. When the resident complained that the noise was ongoing on 16 November 2023, the landlord recorded it as a new stage 1 rather than an escalation to stage 2. This was in accordance with its policy which says an escalation request should be received within 20 working days of the stage 1 response. The landlord correctly explained the process to the resident. The second stage 1 response was given within target timescales, on 28 November 2023. The landlord acknowledged the impact the noise was having on the resident’s health and wellbeing and explained what checks it planned to do again.
18. The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 29 November 2023 and the landlord provided its response on 16 February 2024. This was in excess of its 20 working day target timescale. It offered £100 compensation for this, which was reasonable and proportionate to the level of service failure. The content of the stage 2 response was detailed and outlined the work done so far. It said what it planned to do next.
19. During the complaints process there was evidence of the landlord trying to arrange appointments and instruct contractors. This showed the delay in the stage 2 response did not negatively affect the substantive issue.
20. The landlord offered reasonable redress regarding its complaint handling. A recommendation is made for the landlord to pay the £100 offered to the resident. The finding is made on the basis of this being paid as there was evidence of failings which required remedying. 

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

21. There were sufficient records provided to allow for this investigation.

Communication

22. Communication has not been consistent from the landlord to the resident. It was initially regular and meaningful but there is no evidence of this after May 2024.