Call for Evidence on housing maintenance now open! Respond by 25 October 2024. Submit evidence online.

Notting Hill Genesis (NHG) (202211936)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202211936

Notting Hill Genesis (NHG)

29 January 2024

 

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
    1. Repairs to the boiler and shower at the property.
    2. The resident’s request to have his telephone number removed from the landlord’s system.
    3. The resident’s complaint.

Background

  1. The resident has been the secure tenant of a 1-bedroom ground floor flat for thirty years. The property is located in a converted house.
  2. On 14 October 2021 the heating at the property was serviced and the following day, the resident reported to the landlord that it was not working. Its contractor attended, ordered parts, and these were fitted on 27 October 2021.
  3. The resident made a further report of a boiler leak on 15 February 2022. That leak was repaired on 21 March 2022 but by the end of that month, he reported a lack of hot water to his shower and bath. This was resolved by the end of April 2022. However, on 18 May 2022 the resident once again reported a lack of hot water in the shower which was ultimately resolved on 10 June 2022.
  4. The resident maintains, however, that he was left without hot water between November 2021 and June 2022. He states that he made reports between 27 October 2021 and 15 February 2022, but the situation went unresolved. The resident states the landlord’s operatives contradicted each other in terms of what was required to repair the various issues. He states that a resolution was not reached until a senior engineer/area manager had attended the property in early June 2022 to sort the situation out.
  5. On 20 April 2022 the resident complained to the landlord about the level of service he was receiving over the repairs. The landlord’s final complaint response of 3 October 2022 agreed that delays had taken place. It explained that this was contributed to by the need to order spare parts and because of the resident’s requirement that appointments be notified to him by letter several days in advance. The landlord confirmed that the resident’s telephone number had been removed from its system, as requested by him, and that it had instructed its contractors not to use that method of communication. It offered the resident the total sum of £450 in compensation. This amount comprised £150 for boiler repair delays, £250 for shower repair delays, and £50 for lack of communication.
  6. The resident remained dissatisfied with this response. In his view, the compensation was too low, and he was unhappy with the landlord’s handling of his request to have his number deleted from its systems. He referred these matters to this Service for investigation.

Assessment and findings

Repairs to the boiler and shower at the property.

  1. There is no dispute that the landlord was responsible for the repairs to the heating and hot water systems at the property, or that there were delays in resolving them. There is, however, a difference of opinion as to the length of time over which the resident was left without facilities.
  2. Both landlord and resident agree that there was no heating or hot water between 15 October 2021 and 27 October 2021 – a 12-day period. Whilst the resident maintains the lack of hot water continued to June 2022, the landlord’s records show that when it was called back to the property in February 2022 the hot water was working, albeit there was a leak to the boiler to be resolved.
  3. The hot water was also found to be working at a further attendance to the property on 8 March 2022 but not at a visit on 21 March 2022, less than 2 weeks later. The landlord accepts that it took until 26 April 2022 to repair the boiler leak – although the boiler was usable in the meantime. The shower and hot water issues continued, however, until approximately mid-June 2022.
  4. It is not possible, from the landlord’s records, to reconcile the differing versions of events in this case. What is apparent, however, is that repairs were protracted for 3 reasons:
    1. There were differences of opinion between various operatives as to what was causing the issues and how to repair them.
    2. There were delays whilst parts were obtained.
    3. The resident’s desire to have appointments confirmed in advance by letter meant they could not be scheduled at short notice.
  5. The landlord’s Repairs Policy states that it aims to restore major services, such as heating and hot water within 24 hours. It commits to completing routine repairs within 20 working days. It is apparent, from either side’s chronology in this case, that these standards were not met. A failure to achieve timely and effective repairs can also be inferred from the number of attendances at the property between October 2021 and June 2022 for the same issues. The landlord acknowledges at least 10 attendances by operatives during this time – the resident reports there were more. The resident was left without facilities for longer than he should have been – but an exact timeframe cannot be confirmed.
  6. In identifying whether there has been maladministration, the Ombudsman considers both the events that initially prompted a complaint and the landlord’s response to those events through the operation of its complaints procedure.  The extent to which a landlord has recognised and addressed any shortcomings and the appropriateness of any steps taken to offer redress are therefore as relevant as the original mistake or service failure.  The Ombudsman will not make a finding of maladministration where the landlord has fully acknowledged any failings and taken reasonable steps to offer redress.
  7. It can be seen that when responding to the resident’s complaint, the landlord took a pragmatic approach. It noted that there were factors that slowed it down but were not its fault – namely, the need to obtain parts and provide written advance notice of appointments to the resident. However, it also recognised the difficulties it experienced in getting to the heart of what was going wrong and in addressing them. The landlord therefore accepted there had been delays which were inappropriate. It was important that it acknowledged this to the resident during the complaints process and it was reasonable that it did so.
  8. By the time of the landlord’s final complaint response the repairs had been resolved and so, by way of remedy, the landlord offered compensation, which it calculated at £450. This was made up of £150 for boiler repair delays, £250 for shower repair delays, and £50 for lack of communication following a meeting with the resident to discuss the situation.
  9. The landlord’s Compensation and Goodwill Gestures Policy sets out how it calculates compensation. This states that awards of up to £250 can be offered for the distress and inconvenience caused by service failures. It states that the maximum is likely to involve a serious failure over a longer period of time. The policy also sets out that the landlord can calculate compensation at 10% of daily rent where the loss of facilities such as heating and hot water is involved. The landlord did not attempt a calculation on this latter basis but assessed the different aspects of the service failings separately. It can be seen, therefore, that it offered the maximum compensation for distress and inconvenience for the shower repairs, with slightly less for the boiler and a lower figure for the communication lapse.
  10. It was reasonable that the landlord categorised the issues according to severity in this way. The lack of a daily rent reduction calculation is understandable given it was not clear as to how long the lack of facilities continued for. Further, this Service’s Remedies Guidance would produce a similar figure by way of compensation for a situation like this one. We recommend compensation of between £100 to £600 where there has been a significant failing which has adversely affected a resident but there is no permanent impact on them. The total of £450 falls fairly within this bracket.
  11. Accordingly, the finding of this Service is that the landlord has offered reasonable redress to the resident in respect of its handling of the repairs to the boiler and shower in his property.

The resident’s request to have his telephone number removed from the landlord’s system.

  1. The resident’s preferred method of communication with the landlord and its contractors is by way of written letter. On 12 October 2021 the resident wrote to the landlord requesting that his “phone number be removed from its system and not given out to contractors.” This was a preference that had not been advised to the landlord prior to this point.
  2. Whilst the resident did not raise the landlord’s handling of this request in his complaint, it was addressed as part of its complaints handling process and can, therefore be considered here.
  3. At the time the request was made, the landlord had had difficulty getting hold of the resident by letter to arrange a gas safety check. It was concerned that the lack of contact details would prevent it from carrying out its legal responsibilities such as this check. It wished to retain the number for emergencies. On 18 October 2021 the landlord wrote to the resident confirming its reasoning for retaining the number. It stated that it would look at how it could store it so that it was accessible but clearly only for emergency use. It offered to review this if it could contact the resident by email – a quicker contact method than by letter. The resident was not agreeable to this. He wanted the number removed. He did not want to be contacted by email either. He is, of course, entitled to set out his preference.
  4. By October 2022, however, the landlord had removed the number from its system, confirming this to the resident. It is not clear at what point it was erased. The landlord has provided this Service with a computer screenshot which shows blank spaces for the resident’s telephone number (and email contact).
  5. The landlord’s records show that when referring repairs to its contractors it makes it clear that they must contact the resident in writing, by letter. This was in place in October 2021 when the initial request to remove the number was made. The landlord also offers to help its contractors with this process via a member of its own staff delivering and/or posting letters to the property. It reminds the contractor that enough time must be allowed for the resident to receive the letter and have advance warning of any appointment. On some of its contractor job sheets this requirement is written in capital letters. The landlord states it has reminded its contractors of this requirement more recently too.
  6. The landlord’s records show that it has made reasonable efforts to abide by the resident’s preference. Its belief that the number was needed initially for emergencies was fair given the difficulty it had experienced arranging the gas check. It revisited the issue later and did erase the number, demonstrating a willingness to accommodate the resident’s requirements.
  7. In conclusion, the landlord’s handling of this issue was reasonable and no failing in the service offered has been identified.

The resident’s complaint.

  1. The landlord operates a Complaints & Compliments Policy which sets out its approach to complaints handling. It operates a 2-stage procedure. The first is for a complaint to be acknowledged within 2 working days with a written response in 10 working days. If the resident remains dissatisfied, they can escalate the complaint to the second stage within a reasonable timeframe (normally up to 20 working days). The landlord then commits to providing a decision within a further 20 working days.
  2. The resident complained on 20 April 2022 and received an initial written stage 1 response the next day, 21 April 2022 which was appropriate. On 20 May 2022 the resident wrote to the landlord stating he was dissatisfied with this response – essentially this was a request for the complaint to be escalated to the next stage of the process.
  3. The landlord acknowledged this on 25 May 2022 and noted this request had in fact already been made at a visit the resident made to the landlord’s offices on 5 May 2022. Accordingly, a stage 2 response was due to be provided by 3 June 2022. Whilst the landlord did write to the resident in time (1 June 2022) it expressed its reply as being a ‘Stage One response review.’ The landlord offered a more detailed response than previously and offered compensation. The letter aimed to respond to the issues raised by the resident, but this step was not in accordance with its policy.
  4. The resident maintains that, on 6 June 2022, he delivered a further escalation request letter to the landlord’s office. Its records show no visit from him or receipt of any item at its reception and the landlord denies having received the letter until a copy was provided by the resident on 13 September 2022. In the meantime, on 2 September 2022, the resident chased the review after which point the discrepancy was noted. A response was then provided complying with the 20-working day deadline, taking that visit as the escalation date.
  5. There is nothing in the landlord’s records from which it can be confirmed that the letter was received in June 2022. No communications referred to its contents. It is not possible to confirm a delay on the landlord’s part in acting on the escalation request under these circumstances.
  6. However, the landlord’s handling of the complaint did not progress in accordance with its policy as can be seen above. It issued 2 stage 1 responses but expressed the second as being a review when this was not appropriate. The landlord might reasonably have acknowledged this anomaly and the extension it caused to the timetable of the complaints process for the resident. It might reasonably have offered some compensation for the resident’s time and trouble in continuing to progress his complaint in the meantime. An order for compensation of £50 has been made below.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme), the landlord has offered reasonable redress in respect of its handling of repairs to the boiler and shower at the property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s request to have his telephone number removed from their system.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord should pay the resident compensation of £50 for its complaint handling.
  2. It should confirm with this Service that it has complied with the Order within 4 weeks of receiving this determination.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should re-offer the compensation of £450 to the resident (if it has not been paid already) as this reflected failings in its service and a finding of reasonable redress has been made on the basis this offer remains open for acceptance.