Notting Hill Genesis (202402588)

Background

1. The resident has complained that the landlord mismanaged fire safety works and related service charge costs at the property. He disputes the necessity of the works and states they are excessive and not required by current fire safety legislation. The resident says the costs are unreasonable and do not comply with the lease requirements. He says the landlord misspent service charge funds, which he describes as fraudulent. He seeks compensation and requests that funds are returned to the reserve fund.

What the complaint is about

2. The resident’s complaint is about:
   1. Fire safety requirements at the resident’s property and the service charge costs this incurred.
   2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s queries about fire safety works.
   3. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found:
   1. The complaint about fire safety requirements at the resident’s property and the service charge costs this incurred is outside of the Housing Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
   2. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s queries about fire safety works.
   3. The landlord made an offer of redress in recognition of its handling of the complaint, which, in our opinion, resolved the complaint satisfactorily.

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

Reasons

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.

Fire safety requirements at the resident’s property and the service charge costs this incurred.

4. Throughout the resident’s correspondence, he has alleged that the landlord committed fraud in its spending on fire safety works. This Service does not investigate or determine whether criminal activity, including fraud, has occurred. This would be better dealt with by the courts. The resident has also raised concerns about the level of spending on fire safety costs and whether the costs were reasonable or necessary. Disputes about service charge levels, cost reasonableness and the necessity of spending fall outside of our jurisdiction and are better considered by the tribunal or courts. We have only considered whether the landlord followed its policies and whether it acted reasonably in the circumstance.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s queries about fire safety works

5. During our investigation, the landlord confirmed that the resident raised multiple cases on its system about fire safety concerns. The landlord combined these cases into a single complaint response rather than issuing separate responses. We consider this a reasonable approach in the circumstances. The resident said in his correspondence that issues relating to fire safety have been ongoing for several years. For the purposes of this investigation, we have considered the landlord’s complaint responses from 3 October 2023 and 22 December 2023.
6. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 3 October 2023, addressing queries raised since October 2022. The stage 1 complaint response first considered the resident’s queries about overhead door closers and air vents, raised in November and December 2022. For the overhead door closers, the landlord confirmed its contractor replaced hinges in the same position and added a third hinge. It said this addressed damage caused by a non-compliant door closer and avoided further repairs to the door frame. The property manager advised the landlord could install a door handle to assist with the weight of the door. The resident raised the issue with the air vent in December 2022, as the landlord’s contractor blocked the air vent at the top of the stairs. He asked who made the decision and requested an explanation for the action.
7. In its complaint response, the landlord apologised that the air vent complaint had not been resolved. It confirmed that it issued its fire risk assessment on 12 September 2023, which recommended that the ventilation grill should be sealed. It said it carried out the repair in line with this recommendation to reduce the risk of fire spreading. It stated it would require evidence to support reopening the vent and that showed keeping it closed would affect the building. We consider this a reasonable response to the resident’s query and appropriate action from the landlord, given the recommendation in the fire risk assessment.
8. The landlord responded to concerns the resident raised about a lack of instructions for the fire alarm system. The resident said the landlord had not given guidance on response times for false alarms or issued any notice explaining the process. The landlord confirmed that it referred the resident’s queries to its mechanical and electrical team and its fire safety team. It explained that a different contractor installed the new fire alarm system and that it had contacted the contractor with the resident’s queries. It said it was awaiting a full response. We have not seen evidence of this information being provided to the resident.
9. The landlord addressed the resident’s queries from 1 September 2023 about essential planned works. It confirmed that, following the fire risk assessment, its fire safety team issued a section 20 notice. The listed works included minor joinery repairs and the installation of intumescent strips and smoke seals to existing doors. The landlord said that when the resident disputed the costs, it informed the fire safety manager and requested that the works be cancelled or postponed. It explained that it had followed up with relevant teams to confirm whether its request had been fulfilled. However, it had been unable to get a firm response and would update the resident when it received further information. The landlord has not demonstrated any further update to the resident.
10. The landlord subsequently answered the resident’s query received on 13 September 2023, about charges for annual front door checks. It confirmed that flat entrance doors require regular checks to ensure the self-closing devices operate correctly. It said these checks ensure the entrance doors remain in efficient working order and good repair. The landlord confirmed that these checks are in line with regulations, which it must follow to maintain the building. We have considered the landlord’s fire safety policies, which state that the landlord is required to ensure all flat front doors meet the required standard for a fire door and that door closers are installed. It was therefore acting in line with its fire safety policies.
11. The landlord responded to the resident’s query about an increase in buildings insurance charges. In its complaint response, the landlord confirmed that insurance costs have increased significantly in recent years. It explained that it is not the freeholder and it does not control the selection of the insurer or the associated costs. The landlord confirmed it had asked who the insurance broker was so it could obtain further information about the increase. It said it had also asked that the freeholder provide evidence of obtaining competitive rates in future. It confirmed it would update the resident once it received a response. While this was a reasonable suggestion from the landlord, we have not seen evidence of any further action or information from the freeholder or insurance broker.
12. The landlord addressed the resident’s queries about repairs that he wished to be included in the cyclical maintenance works in the building. It provided a list of the scope of works received from its contractor and responded to further queries raised on 16 September 2023. It was reasonable for the landlord to clearly outline the works to be carried out.
13. The resident had also asked about responsibility if the key for the electrical meter key went missing, including if the landlord held a copy of the key. In its response, the landlord confirmed the electric meter cupboards should remain locked to reduce the risk of fire. It said the property manager should hold a key and a spare. The landlord said it would not charge residents for a replacement key. This was a reasonable response by the landlord; however, we note these queries were raised in April 2023. As these appear to be simple queries that did not involve any investigation, it would have been reasonable for it to have responded sooner.
14. The resident also said that his daughter had tried to arrange the installation of a smart meter. The landlord confirmed that it contacted its energy manager, who said smart meters are installed for sites on contract. It said it smart meters were being rolled out on some sites but not at the resident’s property. It said it needed to investigate further, as it did not have access to previous electricity invoices for the property. We have not seen any further responses about this to the resident.
15. The landlord also addressed the resident’s concerns about noisy doors and confirmed that intumescent strips and smoke seals were to be fitted. However, it said it was disputing the cost of these works following feedback from the resident. The resident had also raised issues with the gutters. The landlord said it would arrange a repair to clear them, which was a reasonable response. It also said it would consider the resident’s request to increase the size of the drainage hole. The landlord apologised that the resident had arranged repair works himself and said it had not been aware of the issues. It confirmed it would investigate this matter further. It was positive that the landlord apologised and would consider the resident’s suggestions. However, we have not seen any evidence that it carried out further investigations.
16. The resident had also raised issues with the windows and the flat roof. The landlord confirmed that both windows and roof works were included in the cyclical maintenance programme. It said it would pass the resident’s suggestions to the surveyor and contractor for review. For his concerns about the front parapet wall, the landlord stated these works were not included in the current cyclical maintenance programme. It confirmed that it would ask the surveyor whether these works could be added to the programme. It was reasonable that the landlord was taking the resident’s suggestions onboard, but it should have advised the resident of the outcome of its discussions.
17. The landlord responded to the resident’s concerns about the rear door leading onto the roof. It said it would determine whether the issue was due to be addressed under the cyclical maintenance works. It said that, if the works were not included, it would raise a separate repair for the issue. As part of the stage 1 complaint response, the landlord set out an action plan for the next steps. It said these actions were scheduled to take place in October 2023. The landlord confirmed it would work closely with its fire safety team and apologised for the issues. While it was positive that it apologised and set out an action plan, we have not seen evidence that it followed up on these actions. It is important that landlords complete stated actions to maintain residents’ trust and confidence.
18. Following the stage 1 complaint response, the resident continued to raise concerns about the fire safety works. He said the landlord had not responded meaningfully to leaseholders and it had mismanaged the fire safety works. He said the landlord should reimburse service charges for costs he considered unnecessary and excessive. His escalation included continued concerns about building insurance, fire safety risk assessments and fire safety works.
19. The landlord noted internally on 31 October 2023 that the resident remained unhappy with the ongoing fire safety works. It noted that it called the resident on 3 November 2023 to discuss the outcome of a meeting with the fire risk team. The landlord confirmed that the recommendation was to arrange a further meeting with a fire surveyor and the property manager present so the resident could ask questions about the assessment process. We consider this a reasonable and constructive step to address the resident’s concerns.
20. The landlord provided a further update to the resident on 20 November 2023. It said the resident’s usual contacts were on leave but acknowledged his concerns and confirmed it would respond promptly. The landlord provided a further update on 22 November 2023 and apologised that it had not called due to staff absence. On 27 November 2023, it updated the resident again and explained that the property manager remained absent and asked the resident to send any further communications about his complaint by email. We consider it reasonable that the landlord communicated openly about staff availability and response times.
21. In December 2023, the resident continued to provide further information in support of his complaints. On 4 December 2023, he raised a query about the landlord’s management of buildings insurance. He said the arrangement of the flats and the shop below may mean that leaseholders were paying for insurance covering both properties. The landlord responded to this query on 20 December 2023. It confirmed that the policy was apportioned as 25% commercial and 75% residential. The landlord explained that it only pays a proportion of the total insurance cost and it had reviewed the invoice. We note it provided a copy of the relevant documentation. It also confirmed that it had enquired about why the costs were higher than usual. While it was reasonable for the landlord to respond to this query, the resident had raised concerns about increased insurance costs in October 2022. As the landlord was still making enquiries in December 2023, this was an unreasonable length of time.
22. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 22 December 2023. It apologised for the delay in providing the response and thanked the resident for attending a meeting on 14 December 2023. The Service has not received any details of this meeting. The landlord acknowledged that the resident had raised the same issues over a prolonged period and recognised the frustration of needing to repeat his concerns. It said that, due to the complexity and technical nature of the issues, further review was required. The property manager apologised for delays in resolving the issues. It also apologised that agreed actions were not completed and the resident was not kept updated. It was reasonable that the landlord recognised its failings.
23. For the resident’s building insurance concerns, the landlord apologised for the delay in providing the insurance policy documents. It acknowledged that it had not made the request for the documents earlier and identified this as a service failure, which was reasonable. It confirmed it had sent the documents on 20 December 2023 and provided further information about the insurance on 22 December 2023.
24. For the resident’s fire safety related queries, it confirmed it had reviewed the latest assessment. It noted that the commercial unit was referenced but clarified that only the residential areas were inspected. The landlord confirmed that leaseholders do not pay for the fire risk assessments relating to the commercial unit. In relation to a reported fire alarm installation in the commercial unit, the landlord said it contacted the commercial leaseholder. It confirmed the commercial leaseholder was not aware of any fire alarm installation and stated this issue required further investigation. We have not seen evidence that the landlord provided any further information about the fire alarm installation to the resident. It should have followed up on this matter, as it had said it would.
25. In response to the resident’s concerns about the number of fire risk assessments, the landlord said that resident safety is its main priority. It said that carrying out fire risk assessments forms a core part of its service. The landlord confirmed that the most recent fire risk assessment took place on 7 December 2021, which recommended that the next assessment be on 14 December 2023. The landlord confirmed that it carries out fire risk assessments at the property every 2 years. It said its fire safety team advised that it has a legal responsibility to complete these assessments. It was reasonable for the landlord to follow the advice of its fire safety team. The landlord confirmed that it would obtain further information about the relevant legislation and would get back to the resident by 19 January 2024. While it was reasonable for the landlord to say it would follow up on the resident’s queries about legislation, we have not seen evidence that it did this by the deadline it had set.
26. The landlord addressed the resident’s concerns about the changes to the fire alarm system, noting that he had objected to the installation. It said that, during a meeting with the property management officer and fire safety team, it was advised that alarms should be interlinked by hard wiring or a wireless system. This was to ensure audibility throughout the property. The landlord confirmed that the suitability of the system required further investigation by a specialist. It said it was not confirmed whether the system was interlinked. We have not seen evidence of the further investigations.
27. The landlord stated it would arrange for internal fire risk surveyors or mechanical and electrical engineers to review the system. It said the review would consider whether the system is fit for purpose and whether it is connected to the commercial unit. The landlord noted that it had inspected the alarm in the commercial unit and found it appeared similar to those in the residential building. However, it confirmed that a specialist assessment was required to verify this. It aimed to arrange the inspection and provide a response by 31 January 2024. We have not seen any evidence of the inspection or further information provided to the resident.
28. In response to the resident’s concerns about the flat entrance doors, the landlord confirmed that the fire risk assessment identified excess threshold gaps beneath the doors. It said it had contacted its fire safety team to confirm when the need for new door closers was identified and to request supporting legislation. The landlord also requested clarification about the flat entrance door checks. It said it had asked who carries out these checks and whether there is a cost associated with them. The landlord confirmed that it had not identified any costs for door checks in the 2022/2023 audited service charge accounts, but it would provide further information by 19 January 2024. We have not seen evidence of it providing this information to the resident, which was unreasonable.
29. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s concern that it had not taken his views into account when spending service charge funds. It confirmed that it consults residents through the section 20 consultation process. During which, residents are given quotes from multiple contractors and the opportunity to comment on proposed works. It confirmed that when the resident raised his concerns, it set up a meeting with the fire risk manager and a senior fire risk surveyor. The landlord said it provided responses to the resident’s queries and offered a joint site visit with a fire risk assessor, but the resident did not take up the offer.
30. The landlord confirmed that a meeting did take place, however, at the property as part of the complaint review. It said it felt further engagement with a technical specialist would assist in addressing the issues raised by the resident. At this time, the property management officer could also attend to ensure actions would be taken following advice. It encouraged the resident to reconsider the offer of a further meeting and that it intended to obtain responses to his queries and provide any relevant supporting legislation. It apologised that it had not yet provided all requested information and set out an action plan with deadlines of 19 and 31 January 2024. It was reasonable that the landlord offered site visits and meetings to engage with the resident. It also acted reasonably by confirming the lessons it had identified from the complaint, demonstrating reflection on its handling of the issues raised.
31. Following the stage 2 complaint response, correspondence between the landlord and resident continued. However, the landlord has not demonstrated that it adhered to its deadlines of 19 and 31 January 2024. These deadlines were set to carry out the actions set in its stage 2 response. On 8 January 2024, the landlord confirmed that the 2024/2025 budget was under consultation. It said it was collating feedback and would provide a response via letter by the end of January 2024. The landlord also said it would confirm with the fire safety team relating to the fire risk assessment and amend the budget if required. We note it honoured this on 8 February 2024 and provided a copy of the fire risk assessment.
32. Based on all of the information, the landlord acted reasonably in providing some explanations and information to the resident. It also proposed reasonable actions within its complaint responses, including action plans and demonstrating learning from the feedback. However, the landlord has fallen below expectations due to significant delays in responding to the resident’s queries. The resident first raised some of the queries in 2022, but the landlord did not provide full responses in its stage 1 or stage 2 complaint responses, which were issued in October and December 2023. The landlord has not provided evidence to show it adhered to the actions or met the deadlines set out in its stage 2 action plan. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to provide clear and complete responses at an earlier stage. While we recognise the technical and complex nature of some of the queries, the landlord had ample time to obtain the answers.
33. During the landlord’s complaints process, the landlord offered £500 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. While it was reasonable that it recognised its failings, it caused further distress and inconvenience by not following the action plans set out in its complaint responses. We have therefore found maladministration by the landlord and order it to pay the resident a further £250 compensation. This is because it has not adequately demonstrated that it has carried out the proposed actions set out in its complaint responses or sufficiently answered the resident’s queries. We also order it to address the outstanding queries which are set out in the orders below.

Complaint handling

34. Due to the level of correspondence and the multiple complaints raised, it is unclear when the resident first raised his formal complaint to the landlord. We have therefore been unable to assess if it acknowledged the complaints and adhered to the timescales set out in our Complaint Handling Code (“the Code”).
35. Following the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response on 3 October 2023, the landlord’s system notes show the resident escalated his complaint on 25 October 2023. The landlord acknowledged the escalation request on 17 November 2023. The Code states that landlords should acknowledge escalation requests within 5 working days. In this case, the landlord’s acknowledgement was 17 working days later.
36. The landlord updated the resident on 22 November 2023 and again on 27 November 2023. It said it needed to extend the stage 2 response deadline to 22 December 2023. The landlord should have issued its stage 2 complaint response or requested an extension by 15 December 2023, which it did. It subsequently issued its stage 2 complaint response on 22 December 2023, in line with the extended deadline.
37. The landlord caused delays throughout the complaints process, and it did not acknowledge the resident’s escalation request within the required timescales. It would also have been reasonable for it to have accurately recorded its complaint stages with the resident. The landlord has offered £150 for the delays. As the landlord has admitted its failings and provided this compensation, we think it has taken reasonable steps to put things right and made an offer of redress which satisfactorily resolves this element of the complaint.

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.