Notting Hill Genesis (NHG) (202304073)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202304073

Notting Hill Genesis (NHG)

9 October 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 the replacement of the front door of the resident’s property.

Background

  1. The resident is the assured tenant of the property, a 1-bedroom first floor flat in a block of flats owned by the landlord. The resident has vulnerabilities linked to her mental health.
  2. The resident informed the landlord on 26 October 2022 that the police gained access into her flat and they broke her front door. The landlord attended the same day. It changed the lock and “made safe” the damaged door. It noted that the door was severely damaged. It said it would need to replace the door.
  3. The landlord had not replaced the front door by March 2023. The resident made a formal complaint on 7 March 2023. She said she was unhappy about the delays in completing the works and that the landlord had granted the police access to her flat.
  4. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 21 March 2023 in which it stated that it had not granted access to the police as it did not hold the keys to the property. The original contractor for the repairs had failed to complete it, thus, it engaged another one to replace the door. It acknowledged the overall delay in resolving the issue and the inconvenience caused to the resident. It offered her £150 in compensation.
  5. The resident requested the escalation of her complaint on 19 April 2023, stating that she was unhappy that the landlord intended to credit the £150 compensation to her rent account. She said the property was not safe and her tenancy agreement stated that the property should be safe while she resided there. She requested for the landlord to cover her arrears from when she reported the door issue in October 2022 until it replaced the door in April 2023.
  6. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 27 April 2023. It apologised for the delay in replacing the door and said it had made an appointment for the contractors to replace the door on 2 May 2023. It offered increased compensation of £650 which included £300 for the delay in replacing the door and £350 for distress and inconvenience.
  7. The resident remained dissatisfied with the £650 compensation the landlord offered and brought her complaint to this Service for investigation. Following this Service request for mediation, the landlord increased its compensation offer to £1200. The resident rejected this increased offer.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. In her contact with this Service, the resident has advised that she would consider a move to a different property as a resolution to the complaint. This request to move was not part of the resident’s formal complaint to the landlord. This Service can assess the complaint the resident referred to us and the responses the landlord has provided; we do not have the powers to instruct a landlord to allocate housing as a resolution to a complaint. The resident may wish to contact the landlord directly if she is seeking a move to a different property and if appropriate make a formal complaint to the landlord about this.
  2. This is in line with Paragraph 42.a of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme which says the Ombudsman may not investigate complaints which have not completed the landlord’s internal complaints process unless there is evidence of a complaint handling failure, and the Ombudsman is satisfied the landlord has not acted within a reasonable timescale.
  3. The resident informed this Service that items were stolen from her property and she requested compensation for these items. This was not part of the resident’s formal complaint to the landlord. As stated above, in line with paragraph 42.a of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, this Service may not investigate complaints which have not completed the landlord’s internal complaints process. The resident is advised to contact her home contents insurance or make a liability claim to the landlord if appropriate.
  4. In contacting this Service, the resident reported that her health had been negatively affected by the landlord’s handling of the repairs. Whilst we do not doubt the resident’s comments, in accordance with paragraph 42.f of the Scheme; The Ombudsman is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. The resident may be able to make a personal injury claim against the landlord if she considers that her health has been affected by its actions or inaction. This is a legal process, and the resident may wish to seek independent legal advice if she wants to pursue this option. Nonetheless, this Service has considered the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident.

Policies and procedures

  1. The landlord’s repairs policy states:
    1. It is responsible for completing repairs to fixtures and fittings which the landlord owns including doors.
    2. It will attend emergency repairs within 4 hours and works to ‘make safe’ or temporarily repair the issue will be completed during this visit or within 24 hours. Further repairs may then be subsequently required to complete the repair.
    3. Routine repairs will be completed within 20 working days. In some cases where a replacement is required for example doors or window replacement it might take more than 20 days to complete.
    4. It would communicate with residents about the time limit to complete any replacement work and keep residents informed throughout the repairs process.
  2. The landlord’s repairs policy does not explicitly state a time limit for completing planned repairs. It is reasonable, however, to expect the landlord to complete planned repairs within the industry standard time limit for completing planned repairs of 90 days.
  3. The landlord’s compensation policy states it can make a discretionary compensation payment of up to £250 for distress and inconvenience resulting from a service failure. In some circumstances where the severity of the distress of the situation is increased for instance due to mental health issues, the compensation amount can be increased to reflect the additional impact to the resident.

The landlord’s handling of the door replacement.

  1. The resident contacted the landlord on 26 October 2022. She said her flat had been boarded up when the police forced entry into the property. She asked the landlord for keys to the padlock the police used to lock the door.
  2. The landlord confirmed with the police that the resident could be allowed access into the property. It arranged an emergency appointment on 26 October 2022 for a locksmith to attend and change the padlock so that she could access the property. The landlord’s repair records show that the locksmith attended and fitted a new lock. The repair records state,” the tenant can come and go but door is so damaged beyond repair- new door is needed.” The repair records also stated, “it made safe the door.”
  3. The landlord dealt with the resident’s request within 24 hours. This was reasonable and within its policy time limit for emergency repairs.
  4. In her complaint to the landlord, the resident stated that she was unhappy the landlord granted the police access to her flat. The landlord advised in its complaints response that it did not hold the keys for any property that it managed. It said that the police broke down the door to gain entry in response to concerns regarding the resident’s safety.
  5. The landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint regarding granting police access to her flat was reasonable. The police broke down the door because they did not have the keys to the flat. If the landlord had the keys to the flat it is reasonable to infer that it would likely have given the keys to the police. This would have prevented the door from being damaged, thereby removing the need to replace the door.
  6. On 13 April 2023, the resident reported that the flat had been “broken into” and items were missing from her flat. She also stated that she did not feel safe in the property. The landlord raised an emergency repair and attended within 24 hours. It secured the door and provided the resident with padlocks for inside and outside the door. It advised the resident to report the “break in” to the police and to inform it of the outcome of the police investigation. The resident was reluctant to make a police report.
  7. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports was reasonable. It attended within its emergency response time limit and was proactive in providing new locks to the resident, this showed that it took her concerns of not feeling safe seriously.
  8. In its complaint response, the landlord explained that the delays in replacing the resident’s door were due to difficulties it encountered with its contractors with regards to getting a quote for the door replacement. The initial contactor it engaged to complete the door replacement on 11 January 2023 declined to complete the job at the agreed price of £72 and instead gave a drastically higher quote of £1,488. This meant the landlord had to contact a different contractor to complete the repairs.
  9. It is understandable that with complex repairs and repairs where parts must be ordered there might be some delays outside the landlord’s control. In these circumstances, the Ombudsman expects landlords to be proactive in seeking alternative solutions to resolve the issue where appropriate, keep residents updated on the cause of delays, explain what they intend to do about the delays and identify ways they can mitigate the impact of delays on the resident.
  10. As stated above, the landlord initially contacted its contractors about a quote to replace the door on 11 January 2023. It was aware on 26 October 2022 when the locksmith attended to change the lock that a new door would be required. It is unclear why the landlord waited until 11 January 2023 to raise a quote for the door. This was a delay of about 2 months and 16 days from when it realised a new door would be required. Furthermore, there is no evidence to show that the landlord informed the resident about the reason for this delay.
  11. The landlord’s records showed the resident contacted the landlord a minimum of 6 times between 9 November 2022 and 20 January 2023, requesting for updates on when the door would be replaced. She also contacted it a minimum of 6 times between when she made her complaint on 7 March 2023 and when she made an escalation request on 19 April 2023. Each time she asked the landlord to update her on the status of the door replacement and she explained the impact the delays had on her mental health and said she felt unsafe in the property. For instance, the landlord records from 3 February 2023 stated, “the resident is vulnerable and rings often”.
  12. This poor communication from the landlord meant that the resident was unduly engaged in sorting out the replacement process, having to make numerous calls and send multiple emails to the landlord requesting for updates, most of which were not responded to in a timely manner. This was unreasonable and would have caused further unnecessary distress and inconvenience during an already stressful time for the resident. This was a failing and not in line with this Service’s expectation regarding how landlords should communicate with residents.
  13. The landlord replaced the door on 24 April 2023, 5months, and 29 days from when it decided a replacement door was required on 26 October 2022. This Service notes that some of the causes of the delays were beyond its control. An instanceis the issues with the contractors, this, however, was an excessively lengthy period and not in line with industry service standards timeframe of 90 days for completing planned repairs.
  14. The landlord failed to complete the door repairs within a reasonable time limit and it failed to keep the resident informed about her repairs. Furthermore, considering the landlord was aware of the resident’s vulnerabilities in relation to her mental health it should have been proactive in getting the initial quote and keeping her updated on the progress of the repairs.
  15. Where there are failings by a landlord, as is the case here, this Service will consider whether the redress offered by it (including an apology and compensation) put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, this Service considers whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with our dispute resolution principles to be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
  16. The landlord did not dispute that there were failings in its handling of the resident’s door repairs. In its stage 1 and stage 2 responses it acknowledged these failings, and it made reasonable attempts to put things ‘right’. Such as:
    1. It apologised for the failings in its stage 1 and stage 2 responses.
    2. It made reasonable attempts to secure a different quote promptly after the initial contractor let it down.
    3. It encouraged the resident to make a police report regarding her stolen items and asked her to inform it after she had done this.
    4. It considered how the distress and inconvenience impacted the resident’s mental health and proposed an increased compensation offer from its initial offer of £150 in its stage 1 response to £650 in its final response. This amount was more than its compensation policy guidance of £250 for distress and inconvenience.
    5. Furthermore, after the complaint was brought to this Service the resident agreed to mediation with the landlord and it increased its offer from £650 to £1200.
  17. While this Service appreciates that the delays in replacing the door and the circumstances surrounding this would have been distressing for the resident, the landlord’s offer of redress was reasonable and in excess of this Service’s remedies guidance of £100 to £600 for maladministration.
  18. We, therefore, find that the landlord has made an offer of reasonable redress, prior to which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion satisfactorily resolves the complaint.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the replacement of the front door of the resident’s property satisfactorily.

Recommendations

  1. The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord pays the resident the £1200 compensation it previously offered (if it has not yet done so). The finding of reasonable redress is on the basis that this payment is made to the resident. This payment must be paid directly to the resident and not her rent account.