Notting Hill Genesis (NHG) (202227285)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202227285

Notting Hill Genesis (NHG)

28 March 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
1. Reports of outstanding repairs in the property and squirrels in the loft.
2. Requests for a boiler repair.
The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s complaints handling.

Background and summary of events

The resident is an assured tenant and has lived in the property with a joint tenant and her family since 1997. The property is a 4-bedroom adapted flat. The landlord has vulnerabilities recorded for the household, including 2 elderly residents and the resident’s son who is disabled and has a rare condition that requires constant care and the use of a wheelchair.

Summary of Events

In August 2021 the resident contacted the landlord about outstanding repairs including: the flooring developing holes (causing problems for the wheelchair); damaged kitchen ceiling and light fittings following a leak; flooding in the kitchen and hallway due to holes in the roof; squirrels in the loft; and mould in the wet room.
On 29 November 2021 the resident told the landlord she was making an official complaint. The landlord visited her on 3 December 2021 and wrote to her on 8 December 2021 confirming its action plan for each of the repairs. The kitchen light would be restored on 11 December 2021, it had requested a condensation/damp clean for the wet room, the flooring was referred to the asset team, and the pest treatment had started with 3 more sessions to go.
The resident reported to the landlord on 29 January 2022 that many of the issues remained outstanding including kitchen ceiling cracks, pest treatments, holes in the roof, and holes in the floor. She also advised that an incorrect fan had been fitted in the wet room, causing the mould to return. The repair records then show that the boiler was leaking on 23 February 2022 and the landlord noted the need for heating and hot water to be restored as soon as possible due to the household’s vulnerabilities.
On 8 March 2022 the resident called the landlord and reported that they had been without heating and hot water for 2 weeks and she had not been contacted with an update. She then chased for a response from 15 to 17 March 2022 and a new boiler was installed on 18 March 2022. However, it soon began malfunctioning and this had to be raised with the manufacturer.
There was also a repair required to the toilet and basin parts due to the change in the pressure from the new boiler, which was raised on 22 March 2022 and completed on 28 March 2022. The evidence shows that the landlord chased the boiler company for interim heating in March 2022, highlighting that the household had vulnerable occupants. The landlord continued to chase the permanent repairs until the boiler company confirmed that full repairs were carried out on 26 March 2022 and the boiler was left in working order.
On 14 and 15 March 2022 the repairs outlined in the complaint were cancelled due to insufficient quotes from the landlord’s contractors.
On 4 April 2022 the resident escalated her complaint and reported new repairs to the wet room. She said she had received conflicting information from contractors (such as whether scaffolding was needed for the holes in the roof to be assessed) and that the contractor would only do a patch repair to the kitchen ceiling due to the costs.
In the landlord’s stage 1 response of 11 April 2022, it said:
1. The fan repair in the wet room was identified during its visit in December 2021 and was fixed within a week. It was not aware this was the wrong size so this would be added to a list of works.
2. The kitchen light repair was resolved within a week.
3. A job was raised to fix the cracks and redecorate the kitchen ceiling but the resident declined the patch repairs, stating she wanted the whole ceiling to be changed, which it did not consider necessary.
4. The damage to the floor was not disputed and it was awaiting approval of proposed works. It apologised for the inconvenience caused.
5. The squirrels were only partially treated and the holes in the roof would be filled after the entire treatment, which would take 4 visits. The resident had not responded to the pest company when they tried to book the follow up visits after the first treatment in December 2021. It encouraged her to allow access to resolve the squirrel problem and the holes in the roof.
The resident raised a new complaint regarding the boiler repair on 12 April 2022, saying it had taken 5 weeks to repair the boiler with no interim heating or hot water provided. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 27 April 2022.
On 4 May 2022 the landlord re-raised a work order for the outstanding repairs to be carried out in one job by a multi-skilled company.
The resident emailed the landlord and disputed the stage 1 response about the repairs on 5 May 2022. She said she had not declined the work to the kitchen ceiling and did not want the whole ceiling changed. Further, she had not declined any pest treatments and had not been contacted by the company.
The boiler company responded to the stage 1 boiler complaint on 5 May 2022, saying it would provide training for the engineers who had failed to visit and communicate with her, and offering £66 for the missed appointment and lack of service. The resident escalated the complaint with the landlord on 15 May 2022 as the response failed to address the impact of the lack of service. She said the household was in constant upheaval during the 5 week period and the immersion heater had to be kept on 24 hours a day for 4 weeks. She wanted to be compensated for these costs and offered to provide the figures once her energy company supplied them.
From 13 to 24 May 2022 contractors visited and provided the landlord with quotes for the grouped works but these were not approved.
The local authority contacted the landlord on 1 June 2022, on behalf of the resident, stating that it could take enforcement action if the repairs were not addressed.
In the landlord’s stage 2 response of 22 June 2022 (addressing both the repairs and boiler complaints) it upheld the complaint, acknowledged service failures in its repair service and complaint handling, apologised, and awarded £946 compensation as follows:
1. It detailed the events of the boiler repair and the contents of the associated stage 1 response and offered £250 (in addition to the £66) for the delayed repair and £30 for the delayed complaint response.
2. It offered to arrange for the remaining pest treatments to be carried out so that the problem could be resolved and the holes in the roof filled. It confirmed scaffolding was not required.
3. It detailed its consideration of the remaining repairs and its decision to group them together. It apologised for the ongoing delay and said a further inspection would be carried out on 24 June 2022 to agree a schedule of works. It awarded £50 under the right to repair and £250 for the distress and inconvenience due to the lack of progress
4. It acknowledged delays in logging the complaints when they were first raised in August 2021 and January 2022 and a lack of clarity in its communications. It awarded £250 for its complaint handling and £50 for the lack of clarity.

Events after the end of the complaints process

In June 2022, the local authority issued a Statutory Repair Notice to the landlord following its own inspection in November 2021 and instructed it to complete the works to remedy identified hazards within the property within 28 days. The landlord subsequently explored the options to decant the resident for the works, and considered her request for a permanent move, in December 2022 and January 2023.
The resident did not move to another property permanently and additional inspections were carried out in January and February 2023 before the remaining repairs were completed in May 2023. The resident remained dissatisfied with the quality of the work and the snagging work, and the landlord’s service following further repairs including leaks in 2023.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The Ombudsman is only able to consider complaints that have exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints process (reflected at paragraph 42(a) of the Scheme). This is so that we can be sure the landlord has had a reasonable opportunity to resolve the issues internally before we intervene. This investigation is therefore focused on the events from August 2021 (when the issues were first raised) to June 2022 (when the complaint completed the complaints process). Reference is made to subsequent events only in so far as they relate to the original complaint. If the resident remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s actions in relation to the quality of works carried out in 2023 she may wish to raise a new complaint in that regard.
The resident has expressed some concern to the Ombudsman about bringing the boiler complaint to this Service at this time, pending the satisfactory completion of all the outstanding repairs. However, as the boiler complaint completed the landlord’s complaints process in June 2022 and was subsequently duly made to this Service (and being mindful that complaints must be brought to the Ombudsman within 12 months) it has been considered in this investigation. The resident is still free to raise a new complaint with the landlord regarding the boiler, provided the issues are not the same as those considered here.

Outstanding repairs in the property and squirrels in the loft

The tenancy agreement states that the landlord must keep in good repair the structure and exterior of the property, including the roof, internal ceilings, pathways, steps or other means of access and plasterwork. It must keep in good repair and proper working order installations for heating, hot water, sanitation, and for the supply of water, gas and electricity, central heating installations, electrical wiring including sockets and switches, gas and water pipes, and keep common parts in reasonable repair and fit for use. The landlord is responsible for pest control in communal areas. The landlord has not disputed its repairing obligations, which are also set out in detail in the Responsive Repair Policy.
The Responsive Repair Policy states that emergency repairs should be attended to and made safe within 4 to 24 hours. Standard repairs should be completed within 20 working days. For replacement or improvement works the landlord must communicate the timescale to the resident; the policy is silent on what the timescales are. The landlord is ultimately required to carry out repairs within a reasonable timescale under section 11, Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.
The repairs were all reported in August 2021 but due to an error these were not acknowledged until the landlord’s visit of December 2021. Therefore, there was an initial 4 month delay to all repairs.
Following the landlord’s visit on 3 December 2021, the kitchen lights were repaired on 11 December 2021, in line with the Responsive Repairs Policy timescale of 20 working days. However, the ceiling repairs were delayed further, initially due to unclear expectations about the scope of the work. The landlord could have done more at an earlier point to clarify the nature of the works by undertaking an inspection with the surveyor and contractor and discussing the resident’s concerns.
The ceiling repair was then delayed further due to the landlord’s decision to group it with the rest of the repairs, and delays in getting the quotes and contractors. The inspection was ultimately arranged for June 2022 and works were carried out in May 2023, which was significantly outside the target timescale for repairs.
The resident’s report of mould in the wet room was raised in August 2021 as part of a prior agreement which has not been evidenced. The landlord’s comments about access to the records are noted, and an order is made in respect of the landlord’s record keeping in line with the Spotlight on: Knowledge and Information Management (KIM) report.
The landlord nonetheless accepted the need to address the mould following its inspection in December 2021 and there was an associated outstanding repair to the wet room fan. Neither the chemical clean nor the replacement extractor fan repair were carried out within a reasonable timescale. These were reported in August 2021 and the fan repair was not successfully completed until May 2023, significantly outside of the Responsive Repair Policy timescale of 20 working days.
The reports of repairs to the wet room increased during the course of the complaint and included a repair to the floor and tiles. The landlord’s responsive repair service in respect of these have not been clear; its list of repairs which it carried over to the asset team and went out to contractors were not updated from the original repairs reported to the fan replacement and damp and mould/condensation chemical clean. Therefore the landlord missed the opportunity to engage with the resident’s reports of further repairs to the wet room in 2022, for which an order of compensation has been made.
With regard to the floor repairs, again first reported in August 2021, these were also not completed until May 2023. The resident had explained that the holes in the floor risked impeding her son’s wheelchair access and the landlord was made aware of the local authority’s concerns about the risk of him falling on uneven surfaces. Despite this, it failed to carry out the repairs with any degree of urgency.
The repairs to the holes in the roof were combined with the pest services, which were not ultimately delivered. The landlord explained in the stage 1 response the pest company’s reason for the delays, which the resident disputed. There is no evidence that the landlord investigated the discrepancy in the reports over access with the pest company, it only offered to rearrange the appointments.
It would have been reasonable for the landlord to oversee this directly, and arrange for the pest company to provide evidence of its visits and attempted contact if they continued to report no access. The repair records indicate a shift in approach following this event, as they do now include a request for photographic evidence before and after repairs on some jobs which is reasonable, however, this was not diligently monitored during the dispute.
The squirrels were reported again during the complaint period and it was accepted that the full treatment did not take place. The landlord did not identify failure on its part to address the dispute about access though it offered to rebook this appointment at the close of the complaint which was resolution focused, but it could have engaged in this sooner.
The landlord failed to address the resident’s reports about holes in the roof as per the Responsive Repair Policy and tenancy agreement’s terms regarding the obligation to maintain and repair the roof. It also failed to acknowledge the impact of this on the resident (leaks into the property), as reported by her in August 2021. This was unreasonable. There were multiple visits by contractors and the repairs were not disputed, but they were delayed due to being combined with the pest work. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to expediate the repairs to the roof, and if it held this to be reliant on the pest proof work then it would have been reasonable to undertake steps to ensure this was also carried out, as set out above. It failed to do this, and it remains unclear if the holes have been repaired to date.
The Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018 states that the property should be free from conditions that can cause serious harm. The Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 states that repairs should be carried out in a reasonable timescale. The landlord’s efforts to manage the repairs in a way which provided value for money did not reasonably account for its duties to carry out repairs within a reasonable period of time, and the risks which the resident was highlighting to it.
The landlord was aware that there was a 4 month delay in the repairs as of December 2021 and though it initially seemed to pick this up and take steps to raise the works that month, there were then unreasonable delays and inaction in the period that followed. The repairs were delayed by the landlord’s decision to group the works together under its asset team’s administration. There were delays in the repairs being raised, collecting quotes, cancelled, and re-raised.
The resident experienced a significant level of distress and inconvenience and time and trouble throughout the course of her repairs complaint. The landlord acknowledged this through the operation of its complaints process, apologised, and offered £300 in its stage 2 response. This demonstrates that it had reflected on its service and took steps to put things right. However, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, the financial redress offered was not proportionate to the failings identified in this report, particularly in light of the vulnerabilities within the resident’s household.
Therefore, there was maladministration. Having regard to the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles and our Remedies Guidance, this Service awards a total of £1,500 compensation (at £75 per month the repairs were outstanding beyond reasonable timescales). This sum is inclusive of the £300 offered by the landlord in its stage 2 response, which may be deducted if already paid to the resident.

Boiler repair

It is not disputed that there were service failures following the resident’s reports about the boiler and that she was without heating and hot water for 5 weeks from late February 2022 to 26 March 2022. The resident explained the distress and inconvenience experienced during this period, and the vulnerabilities of the household were known to the landlord.
The evidence shows that once the landlord became aware of the seriousness of the situation, it prioritised getting interim support from the boiler company. Despite initial challenges from the company over the terms of its service provision, the landlord secured interim heating from them and then proactively monitored the permanent repairs, which was reasonable.
In its stage 2 response, the landlord acknowledged that the repair was not handled appropriately and increased the offer of compensation from £66 to £316 (which it cited as being the maximum under its Complaint and Goodwill Gesture Policy). The landlord’s response was resolution focused, as it identified a failure in its contracted services and it engaged with the boiler company to expediate interim support for the resident, followed by regular communication with the company to highlight the urgency of the works. The award of financial redress also demonstrated that it recognised the impact of the failings on the resident and her family.
However, the resident expressly raised the issue of the costs of running her immersion heater during the 5 week period, and there is no evidence that the landlord investigated or responded on this point. This was a missed opportunity to demonstrate that it had carefully considered all aspects of the complaint and sought to put things right. This amounts to service failure and an order has been made for an additional £84 to be paid in that regard. This brings the total compensation award for the boiler repair to £400, inclusive of the £316 offered by the landlord in its stage 2 response, which may be deducted if already paid to the resident.

Complaint handling

The Housing Ombudsman Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out the timescale for stage 1 and 2 complaints, which are 10 and 20 working days respectively.
The landlord’s initial response to the resident’s complaint of August 2021 has not been evidenced. While it took steps to address the substantive issues in December 2021, it still failed to engage with the resident’s escalation in January 2022 in contravention of the Code’s timescale for stage 1 responses.
On 4 April 2022 the resident escalated the complaint again and the landlord issued a stage 1 response on 11 April 2022, within 10 working days. However, it missed the opportunity to respond to the new complaint points. Following the resident’s escalation on 5 May 2022 the landlord’s final response of 22 June 2022 was outside of the 20 working day timescale prescribed by the Code.
The resident’s complaint about the boiler repair was raised on 12 April 2022 and responded to on 5 May 2022, outside of 10 working days. In the stage 2 response, the landlord reasonably identified this to be a service failure. It upheld the complaint and apologised. Following the resident’s escalation of 15 May 2022 (and the landlord sensibly combining the 2 complaints) the final response of 22 June 2022 was outside of the prescribed timescale by 2 days.
The landlord considered its complaint handling overall and identified service failures in the clarity of the complaint process, its communication, missed opportunities, and the failure to log the complaint sooner than it did. This aligns with the Ombudsman’s findings in this report. It apologised and offered £330 compensation in relation to its complaint handling.
This sum is in line with the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance, taking into account all the circumstances of the case. The redress is proportionate to the detriment caused in time and trouble, and the acknowledged service failures for the communication, missed opportunity, unclear complaint process and delays. The landlord also apologised to the resident, and updated this Service on its learning which involved reviewing its complaint practice in line with the Code. Therefore, there was reasonable redress by the landlord.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was:
1. maladministration in the landlord’s response to the reports of outstanding repairs in the property and squirrels in the loft.
2. service failure in the landlord’s response to the requests for a boiler repair.
In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Scheme, there was reasonable redress for the landlord’s complaints handling.

Reasons

The landlord failed to resolve the repairs within a reasonable timescale, it did not manage the repairs process appropriately, and it failed to have proper regard to the impact on the resident, particularly in view of the vulnerabilities in the household. It did not award proportionate redress for the duration of the outstanding repairs.
While the landlord took steps to put right the established failures in respect of the boiler repair, it missed the opportunity to address the resident’s request to be reimbursed for the costs of running an immersion heater.
The landlord acknowledged and identified the service failures in its handling of the complaints and awarded proportionate redress in that regard.

Orders and recommendations

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Pay the resident a total of £2,230 compensation comprised of:
  1. £1,500 for its handling of the repairs and pest treatments (inclusive of the £300 offered in its stage 2 response).
  2. £400 for its handling of the boiler repair (inclusive of the £316 offered in its stage 2 response).
  3. £330 for its complaints handling (as per the offer in its stage 2 response).
2. Contact the resident in writing to confirm its action plan in respect of the squirrels and the holes in the roof, if these works are still outstanding.
3. Review recommendation 13 of the KIM report with its complaint and repair teams to ensure that it improves its access to repair records in future. This can be found on the Ombudsman’s website.
4. Demonstrate compliance with the above orders to this Service.