Notting Hill Genesis (202435566)
|
Case ID |
202435566 |
|
Decision type |
Investigation |
|
Landlord |
Notting Hill Genesis |
|
Landlord type |
Housing Association |
|
Occupancy |
Leaseholder |
|
Date |
2 December 2025 |
- The resident is a leaseholder and has occupied the property, a second floor flat, since 2002. The resident has said that around January 2023, there was a leak in to the communal stairwell. In July 2023, contractors fitted scaffolding around his property in order to access the roof of the third floor and started carrying out repairs. The resident reported issues with water ingress in to his property in August 2023 and there was a dispute over whether the damage to the roof of his property had been caused by the contractors carrying out the communal roof repair. The landlord instructed an independent contractor to assess the roof damage and the resident’s roof was repaired. However, the resident has concerns over being charged for these additional repairs, as he feels the landlord should hold the original contractor responsible.
What the complaint is about
- The complaint is about roof repair work causing water ingress into the resident’s flat and the associated cost of further repairs.
- We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.
Our decision (determination)
- There was reasonable redress offered regarding the landlord’s handling of:
- The roof repair work causing water ingress into the resident’s flat and the associated cost of further repairs.
- The resident’s formal complaint.
We have not made any orders.
Summary of reasons
- The landlord delayed repairing the roof above the resident’s property but took reasonable steps to address the issue and to compensate him for the distress and inconvenience.
- Although there were delays in responding to the resident’s July 2024 complaint, the landlord recognised its failings and offered reasonable compensation to remedy this.
Recommendations
Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.
|
Our recommendations |
|
The landlord is recommended to pay the resident the £1,849 compensation offered (if it has not already).
This is made up of:
The reasonable redress finding is made on that basis. |
Our investigation
The complaint procedure
|
Date |
What happened |
||
|
31 August 2023 |
The resident complained to the landlord about contractors that came to fix a leak in the communal stairway. He said they damaged some roof tiles which led to water ingress to his property. |
||
|
5 September 2023 |
The landlord acknowledged the complaint and over the following months, liaised with the resident in order to have repairs done and to reach an agreement to resolve the complaint. |
||
|
7 September 2023 |
The resident was paid £74 to cover the cost of paint, in order for him to be able to redecorate. |
|
|
|
15 December 2023 |
The resident was paid £700 made up of £500 compensation and £200 to cover an insurance excess he was claiming for, to cover redecoration. |
|
|
|
4 May 2024 |
After further negotiations, the resident accepted a further £250 compensation from the landlord to “draw this to a close”, offered on the basis of the roof repair having a direct impact to his property. It was offered alongside the claim he had raised to cover the cost of redecorating his flat via the insurance team. |
|
|
|
18 July 2024 |
The resident made a new complaint as he noticed further water ingress at his property. An acknowledgement was sent, but it was undated. |
|
|
|
12 August 2024 |
The landlord issued its stage 1 response. It said the contractor that carried out the repairs disputed it had caused damage to the resident’s roof. Therefore, it would arrange a drone survey of the roof and was considering what costs the residents of the block should bear in terms of further repairs. It accepted its service had fallen short as the repairs had not worked and offered the resident £200 compensation.
The resident escalated the complaint to stage 2 the same day as he did not feel the landlord’s response addressed his concerns sufficiently. |
|
|
|
16 August 2024 |
The resident told the landlord he was prepared for the stage 2 response to be deferred pending the drone survey to be done by a new roofing company, if the landlord responded with a clear plan of work by the end of August 2024, and repairs were carried out by the end of September 2024. He said if this was not possible, he did not want to delay the stage 2 response to the complaint.
The landlord responded the same day and said the drone survey was booked in, but beyond that, it could not be specific on other dates. |
|
|
|
2 September 2024 |
The landlord acknowledged the complaint had been escalated to stage 2 and said a response would be sent within 20 working days, by 30 September 2024. |
|
|
|
30 September 2024 |
The landlord advised the resident it needed more time to respond at stage 2. It said it would respond by 28 October 2024. |
|
|
|
28 October 2024 |
The landlord issued its stage 2 response. It said roof repairs were starting that week and the original contractor had provided evidence that showed damage to the roof identified by the drone survey was not done by them. It said the damage was likely caused by vandals accessing the roof via the scaffolding. Due to the length of time the scaffolding was up, and the fact it was not alarmed, it would take the matter up with the original contractor, as it was going to dispute the invoice.
It explained the roofing works were service rechargeable. Dispute over whether residents should be charged for repairs therefore fell outside the remit of the complaints process and needed to be addressed via a service charge first tier tribunal.
The landlord also increased its offer of compensation from £200 to £700 due to the roof issues remaining unresolved and the stress and inconvenience caused. In addition, it offered the resident a decorating voucher for paint and equipment for the entire property and £50 compensation for the delay in responding to the complaint.
The resident accepted the payment of £750 the same day but said he would prefer the value of the decorating voucher so he could purchase his own supplies. |
|
|
|
13 December 2024 |
The resident referred the complaint to us because he had not received confirmation that he would not be charged by way of money being taken from the reserve account, for the further repairs needed to remedy the roof repair. In addition, the landlord had not agreed to pay the resident the value of the decorating voucher, as requested. |
||
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.
|
Complaint |
The landlord’s handling of roof repair work causing water ingress into the resident’s flat and the associated cost of further repairs. |
|
Finding |
Reasonable redress |
- When the resident first reported water ingress to his property, the landlord arranged for a contractor to attend and assess the damage. The resident told the landlord the contractor had explained it was scaffolding that had damaged the roof tiles above his property and this had caused the water ingress.
- The landlord’s ‘responsive repairs policy – leasehold’ does not specify timescales for carrying out repairs. However, they should be carried out within a reasonable amount of time. In this case, it took from August 2023 until April 2024 for the repairs to be carried out and for the resident’s property to be redecorated. This was because the landlord was liaising with the contractor that had potentially caused the damage to the roof. We have seen reference to the contractor having to erect scaffolding on 3 separate occasions and of appointments being cancelled over this 8-month period, leading to the resident having to rearrange redecoration and being left frustrated due to the time things were taking.
- It is of note though, that the landlord acknowledged there had been failings and that the resident was going to incur costs and was inconvenienced by what happened. It therefore took steps to put things right which was appropriate, and it offered the resident £74 to cover the cost of paint as well as a further £950 compensation overall. The payment recognised that the water ingress, and the delay addressing it, had had a significant impact on him, and the amount offered was in line with the landlord’s compensation and goodwill gestures procedure, as well as our remedies guidance. The resident accepted the compensation to resolve his complaint, so was deemed reasonable by him at the time.
- On 18 July 2024 the resident reported further water ingress in his property and complained because he said the repair had not resolved the issue. The resident told the landlord he felt he and other residents should not have to cover the cost of further repairs by way of it being paid from the reserve account and that the contractor that carried out the original should cover the cost.
- Internal emails sent by landlord staff show this is something it did consider at the time. As it was not clear whether the original contractor had caused damage to the roof, the landlord took a sensible approach by arranging for an independent roofing company to carry out a drone survey of the roof and establish where there were issues. This was communicated to the resident, and although he had doubts over the effectiveness of a drone survey, it did identify where there was damage and was therefore of use.
- The resident has told us he feels the landlord ought to have a process in place to have work done by contractors post-inspected. However, it is important to appreciate that contractors are employed for their expertise. Landlord staff are not experts in all repairs, so it is therefore not realistic for the landlord to always pay for a surveyor to assess all work contractors do. That would usually only be needed if there was a potential issue with work done, as was the case here.
- In addition to arranging a survey, the landlord ensured it managed the resident’s expectations by explaining it was still considering what costs residents of the building may incur. It also offered the resident additional compensation to acknowledge the further inconvenience caused.
- The landlord continued to communicate with the resident about its plans. On 10 September 2024 it explained that having had the survey, it had obtained a quote from the new roofing company to carry out repairs, but the current scaffolding would need to be removed before the new company could do any work. In the meantime, the landlord issued a Section 20 (b) notice as the service charge accounts could not be finalised, as it was disputing the original contractor’s invoice for work done. It told the resident how much the service charges could be, but explained they were subject to change.
- While the landlord was in the process of challenging the original contractor’s invoice, it was sent a photograph of someone sat on top of the scaffolding by the resident’s property. This created uncertainty as to whether the damage to the roof which caused the water ingress was as a result of trespassers/vandals as opposed to an error by the original contractor. The landlord did manage to agree a slight reduction in the original contractor’s invoice due to it having left the scaffolding up for a long time, which allowed people to climb it. It also explained to the resident it had received evidence to show the original contractor had not done the damage and it was likely caused by trespassers. The resident believes the error lies with the original contractor, and it should therefore cover the costs of further repairs. We cannot determine the cause of the damage, but it is clear the landlord did investigate and challenged the work done in order to try and identify the potential cause of the damage and establish what happened. It kept the resident updated and explained how it reached the opinion it did, so its communication was reasonable.
- Overall, we are satisfied that once the landlord was made aware the water ingress had not been resolved by the original contractor, it made a prompt decision to instruct another roofing company. The original contractor had already been given the opportunity to put things right, so when it became apparent the follow-up repairs had not worked, it was sensible to ask a new roofing company to survey the building and carry out the necessary repairs.
- Although the landlord managed to negotiate a reduction of the original contractor’s invoice, Section 8.5 of the resident’s lease allows the landlord to recover the additional expenditure from the resident in connection with repairing the roof. There is evidence of the landlord consulting with its legal team over matters, and it may choose to try and pursue the original contractor legally for any additional costs incurred fixing the roof. However, if it chooses passes on these costs to the resident by way of using the reserve account/service charge and the resident disagrees, he would need to apply to the First Tier Tribunal for it to assess whether that charge is payable, as advised by the landlord.
- When addressing the resident’s later complaint, the landlord again acknowledged a further repair had been needed and was not completed until mid-October 2024. To recognise that he experienced further stress and inconvenience by having to wait another 3 months for the repair, it offered a further £700 compensation (plus an additional £50 for poor complaint handling which will be commented on later), which the resident said he was satisfied with. He was also paid £75 on 3 July 2025, but it is not clear what that was for. The landlord also offered him a decorating voucher, but the resident asked for the cash equivalent as he did not need all the items it covered and meant he could choose whether to employ a painter. The landlord did not agree to that, but the fact it would not offer a cash alternative was reasonable because the compensation offered was to take in to account inconvenience caused, which included having to redecorate again.
- Aside from the additional £75 paid later and decorating voucher, the offer of £700 compensation for 3 months inconvenience is in our view proportionate as the resident had been told the repair had been done and had already redecorated his home. To then have water leaking in to the property once more and to have to redecorate again, was understandably very frustrating for him.
- There were delays getting the roof repaired but the landlord has kept clear records of everything that happened, and it did keep the resident updated. The £1,799 offered in total (excluding £50 for poor complaint handling) by the landlord was in line with its compensation and goodwill gestures procedure (procedure), as well as our guidance. As a result, we would have made the same or similar award in the circumstances, and we therefore make a finding of reasonable redress and that the landlord has made an offer which was proportionate to resolve this part of the complaint.
We have been told by both parties that there is another leak in the communal stairway. The landlord has said it is addressing that, but as this happened since the complaint was made and referred to us, it cannot form part of this investigation.
|
Complaint |
The handling of the complaint |
|
Finding |
Reasonable redress |
- Having raised a complaint on 31 August 2023 the landlord did not resolve the issues raised within 10 working days as per its complaints and compliments policy (policy) at the time. However, the evidence shows the resident chose to liaise with the landlord over the following months, to wait until the repairs to his property were completed. The resident has confirmed he chose not to escalate the complaint and during that time, the landlord attempted to put things right and offered the resident compensation, which he accepted. Once the repairs had been carried out, and compensation paid to recognise the time things had taken, the complaint was deemed resolved. As the landlord actively tried to resolve matters and the parties reached an agreement in respect of the resident’s concerns, we are satisfied the landlord’s handling of the first complaint was reasonable.
- Another complaint was made on 18 July 2024 because there was a further issue with water ingress at the resident’s property. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 12 August 2024, so failed to adhere to its obligations to respond within 10 working days. The complaint was escalated the same day, so a stage 2 response should have been sent by 10 September 2024. Although the resident told the landlord it could defer its response if it could comply with certain requests he made, there is no evidence an agreement in that respect was reached.
- The landlord took 3 weeks to acknowledge the complaint. It told the resident on 2 September 2024 to expect a response within 20 working days. However, the landlord told the resident on 30 September 2024 it needed more time to respond and would issue a response by 28 October 2024. It did then issue a response on the date promised. It acknowledged failings and put forward remedies which were in line with its procedure. That included compensation of £50 for delays in its complaint handling.
- In this case the landlord’s communication could have been better when addressing the 18 July 2024 complaint initially. It failed to follow its policy resulting in a delay that caused minor inconvenience to the resident. However, it did go on to notify the resident when more time was needed to respond, and the amount of compensation offered by the landlord to remedy that, is in line with its procedure, as well as our guidance. It follows therefore, that we would have made the same or similar award in the circumstances. As a result, a finding of reasonable redress has been made as the landlord has made an offer which was reasonable and proportionate to resolve the complaint.
Learning
- It was good practice that the landlord continued to try and find a resolution to the issue that occurred. It also accepted there had been failures, and attempted to put them right.