Notting Hill Genesis (202413821)

Background

1. The resident reported multiple leaks impacting her property, with water coming through her lounge, kitchen, and hallway ceilings. She was unhappy with the landlord’s handling of this, as well as various repairs to the fencing, windows, and door. She told the landlord the leaks caused damage to her belongings and flooring, and the issues impacted her family, including her vulnerable child.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. Reports of leaks, a loss of heating and hot water, and associated repairs.
   2. Repairs to the windows, doors, and fencing.
3. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found there was:
   1. Severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of leaks, a loss of heating and hot water, and associated repairs.
   2. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the windows, doors, and fencing.
   3. Reasonable redress offered in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of reports of leaks, a loss of heating and hot water, and associated repairs

5. The landlord repeatedly failed to respond to the reports within its required timescales and did not follow its procedure for leaks affecting ceilings. Its repair records were confusing, and it has not shown it investigated serious safety risks, allowing the significant issues to continue for around 14 months.

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the windows, doors, and fencing

6. The landlord failed to evidence it managed the various repairs appropriately and in line with its repairs timescales because of its poor record keeping.

The landlord’s complaint handling

7. The landlord acknowledged it failed to address the resident’s complaint fully at stage 1 and put this right at stage 2. We have made a recommendation to encourage learning from the confusion caused by its communication of the compensation offer.

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.

Heating and hot water

8. Part of the resident’s complaint involved a lack of heating and hot water caused by a boiler leak. The landlord’s heating, gas and hot water policy explains it will respond to reports of a loss of heating or hot water within its emergency repair timescale of 4 hours, to make it safe within 24 hours of the report during the Winter months (October to March). It will then complete the repair within 3 days.
9. The landlord raised an emergency repair on 15 December 2023 but struggled to access the property. It tried again on 22 January 2024 and 6 February 2024 but noted further access issues. It then completed a temporary repair on 4 April 2024 which restored the heating and hot water. It later carried out a full repair on 9 April 2024.
10. The landlord’s poor records mean we cannot confirm whether the resident remained without heating or hot water continuously for nearly 4 months. Her April 2024 complaint suggests otherwise, because she said she had been without hot water for 6 days. However, the records do not show when the landlord restored the heating or hot water after the December 2023 report.
11. Although the landlord noted access issues during this time, it still had a duty to resolve the heating and hot water issue, in line with the tenancy agreement. It has not shown it tried other ways to progress the repair, such as discussing options with the resident or creating an action plan. As a result, we cannot conclude that it managed this earlier report appropriately, which was a failing.

Leaks and associated repairs

12. For context, the resident had previously reported a leak from the over-bath shower in June 2022 which went through the floor and damaged the ceiling below. In October 2022, while repairing the ceilings, the landlord found water had entered the fuse box downstairs.
13. From May 2023, the resident reported further leaks from the over-bath shower, boiler, and toilet. She also reported related issues, including ceiling damage which had started bowing, damp and mould, and further electrical safety concerns with water leaking into the fuse box again. She added that the leaks had caused damage to her furniture and flooring in the rooms below.
14. After the resident reported new leaks, the landlord arranged for its contractor to investigate this. While it repaired the toilet leak in a reasonable period, the resident explained on 17 May 2023 that its contractor had not attended 4 appointments to repair the boiler leak. She said it had either cancelled or did not attend. This shows poor oversight of the repairs.
15. We note the landlord tried to arrange a surveyor inspection in May 2023, but the resident later said she was unavailable for the appointment offered. However, we would have reasonably expected it tried to rebook this appointment given the substantial leaks reported. It has not shown that it did so, which means we cannot confirm when or if it repaired the boiler leak.
16. On 22 June 2023, the resident reported that water still leaked through the ceiling, and when using the shower, the water leaked onto the fuse box. This posed a major safety risk, especially with vulnerable children in the home. The landlord should have investigated this within 4 hours, in line with its repairs policy. If it found a hazard, it should have made this safe within this period. However, there is no evidence to show it attended or later ensured this was safe. This was a failing.
17. Confusing repair records make it difficult to establish what happened. We can see the landlord raised various repairs for the toilet leak, but noted different dates for the “works completed” date and the “repaired date”. There is no additional information provided to explain the difference in dates.
18. For example, the landlord raised an emergency repair on 31 December 2023 for an uncontainable toilet leak. The records state it could not gain access to the property on 1 or 2 January 2024 but repaired the issue on 3 January 2024. However, for the 2 jobs raised for this repair, it listed the “repaired date[s]” as 11 January 2024 and 15 March 2024. This inconsistency makes it hard to assess what happened and whether it acted promptly. It also raises concerns about the accuracy of its records, which means we cannot rely upon the information provided. The landlord may wish to refer to our Centre for Learning for e-learning and case studies related to ‘Knowledge and Information Management’.
19. Given the reports of damp and mould, the landlord should have considered interim measures to manage this issue at the earliest opportunity. We expect landlords to complete a mould wash as a timely action to ease the visible signs of mould and minimise the resident’s discomfort. Our ‘Spotlight Report on Damp and Mould’ notes this as good practice, and the landlord’s damp and mould policy also states it will “remove any immediate risk of harm from damp and mould…to ensure that the resident is safe”.  However, there is no evidence that it did this. The landlord’s lack of action was therefore not appropriate.
20. The landlord also failed to follow its ‘leaks affecting ceilings’ procedure. The procedure requires a 4-hour emergency response, and for it to raise an asbestos survey to receive the results within 7 days and complete follow-on works within a further 20 working days.
21. Despite being notified of the damaged ceilings on 4 May 2023, there is no evidence that the landlord raised repairs to address this. In the resident’s complaint 11 months later, she said the ceilings were bowing and remained mouldy and damp due to the leaks. While the landlord then inspected the property, this was nearly a year after the resident reported the issues, significantly outside its emergency timescale.
22. After inspecting the property on 25 April 2024, the landlord still failed to follow its leaks procedure. It did not request an asbestos test until July 2024 after it had already started works identified in its final complaint response. By not arranging the test at the earliest opportunity, it caused further avoidable delays in completing the ceiling works.
23. The resident also told the landlord in November 2023 that the leak caused her downstairs lights in the hallway, kitchen, and lounge to stop working. The landlord’s records are unclear, stating both that it repaired the issue on 20 December 2023 and that it did not complete any work due to access issues. The April 2024 inspection found the lights still did not work and needed an electrical test. This suggests the landlord failed to inspect and raise the repair for around 5 months. This was a significant delay.

Summary

24. The landlord took around 14 months to resolve the leaks and repair the ceilings after the resident’s reports in May 2023. Its records show it completed the works between 31 July 2024 and September 2024. During this time, the resident experienced lengthy delays and a lack of proactive repair management, causing significant distress and inconvenience over a prolonged period.
25. Although the landlord investigated and repaired some issues during this time, it had overall poor handling of the leaks and related repairs. The records do not show that it:
    1. Gave the resident timely updates.
    2. Considered the household’s vulnerabilities, including her vulnerable child, and how the issues impacted them.
    3. Followed its ‘leaks affecting ceilings’ procedure by responding within its emergency timescale or raising an asbestos test at the earliest opportunity.
    4. Responded within the timescales set out in its repairs policy.
    5. Appropriately assessed and ensured the safety of the household following the potential hazards reported with water leaking onto the fuse box.
    6. Offered a mould wash to reduce the impact of ongoing leaks.
26. The landlord accepted its poor monitoring caused repair delays. It offered a total of £450 compensation for the delayed repairs, missed appointments, and the resident’s distress and inconvenience. While positive, this amount was not proportionate to reflect the considerable and prolonged impact caused during this time.
27. We have therefore ordered further compensation to reflect the significant impact on the resident’s use and enjoyment of the property during this time. We have also ordered a separate further amount to reflect the distress and inconvenience caused by the handling of the leaks, heating and hot water, and related repairs.
28. Additionally, the resident also told the landlord throughout this time that her furniture and flooring had been damaged by the leak. It was reasonable for the landlord to direct her to her home contents insurance, and to provide details of an available hardship fund. However, in line with its complaints policy, it should have also provided her details of how to make a liability claim to its liability insurers, especially as she believed the landlord’s failures caused the damage. We have made an order about this too.
29. The resident reported another leak in December 2024, after the repairs had been completed. We cannot investigate matters that have not yet been through the landlord’s complaints process. If she wishes to, the resident can make a new complaint and escalate this to us to investigate if needed.

Windows and door repairs

30. The landlord’s inspection in April 2024 identified that the bedroom, dining room, and kitchen needed new double glazing and the rear lounge door needed an “overhaul”. The resident had raised concerns with blown windows and gaps in the door as part of her complaint, but there is no evidence to show whether she had reported this previously.
31. Despite identifying the required works, there is no evidence that the landlord raised and completed these repairs. In September 2024, the resident told us the door repair remained outstanding. She later confirmed the landlord has completed the works, but the lack of records has meant we do not know when it did this. We therefore cannot establish whether it acted in a timely manner. This was a failing.

Fencing repairs

32. In July 2023, the resident asked the landlord to repair the fencing because it had only carried out a temporary repair to the back gate and had not repaired the front gate. This suggests there were earlier reports of fencing issues, but the landlord has not provided this evidence to us, which is concerning.
33. The repair timeline for the fencing is unclear. The records show works in July and August 2023 but list a “repaired date” of February 2024. During this time, the landlord raised 3 further jobs for a “flimsy” fence that the resident believed was “dangerous”. In January 2024, the landlord noted it would not complete any works other than to “make [the fence] safe”, and it would renew the fencing in the new financial year (beginning April 2024). The conflicting records mean we cannot assess what work it completed and whether it acted promptly.
34. In the resident’s complaint in April 2024, she said the fencing still needed repairs, but the landlord kept cancelling jobs. It was appropriate for the landlord to raise a further repair, especially as this fell in the new financial year. It inspected the fence and gate on 20 May 2024. While we do not know when it completed the repairs, it returned on 11 June 2024 to complete follow-on repairs to fully resolve the issues.

Summary

35. Overall, the landlord’s record keeping has meant we cannot conclude it responded to the various repairs in a timely manner in line with its repairs policy. Given this, we have found maladministration.

36. The landlord’s complaints policy is in line with our statutory Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’).
37. The landlord issued its stage 1 response within 17 working days. While this was 2 working days beyond its overall target timescale, there is no evidence that this caused any significant detriment to the resident. It issued its stage 2 response within 20 working days, which was in line with its policy and the Code.
38. At stage 2, the landlord acknowledged its initial response had failed to address the resident’s concern about the loss of heating and hot water. It acted appropriately by recognising this and offering her £50 compensation to put things right.
39. The landlord also offered the resident £100 compensation for the inconvenience caused by the delayed leak repairs and the boiler issues. It is confusing that the landlord offered the compensation before providing its stage 1 response. It then did not refer to the offer within the response, yet at stage 2 it said, “after reviewing the initial compensation offered”, it had increased this.
40. The Code requires landlords to acknowledge failings and set out actions they have taken or will take to put this right. The landlord therefore missed an opportunity to clearly confirm and explain the £100 offer in its initial response. The lack of clarity understandably confused the resident, who initially refused the offer until it later explained that it was for the missed contractor appointments. The landlord could have reasonably avoided the confusion if it clearly communicated the offer within the complaint response.
41. Despite the unclear compensation, the landlord responded to the complaint appropriately overall. It acknowledged it failed to address the resident’s complaint fully and put this right at stage 2. We have, however, made a relevant recommendation to help learn from its communication around compensation in future cases.

Learning

42. The landlord’s investigation into the resident’s escalation request showed good practice, as it identified failings and ensured it put these right. This was positive.

Knowledge and information management (record keeping)

43. The repair records were inconsistent and unclear, making it difficult to assess what works the landlord did. This included using conflicting “works completed” dates and “repaired date[s]”. Due to the lack of detailed evidence, we cannot find it acted appropriately to repair the leaks and various repairs or that it followed its repairs policy or leak procedure. It also has not evidenced it responded appropriately to the significant potential hazard of water affecting the electrics. The landlord may wish to refer to our Centre for Learning for e-learning and case studies related to ‘Knowledge and Information Management’.

Communication

44. The landlord failed to clearly explain its compensation offer and created avoidable confusion by issuing the compensation before its complaint response. It also did not evidence it provided timely proactive updates about the repairs, leaving the resident uncertain about the progress.