Notting Hill Genesis (NHG) (202313073)
REPORT
COMPLAINT 202313073
Notting Hill Genesis (NHG)
10 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
- The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
- Reports of repair and access issues with a communal bike shed, including communication.
- Associated formal complaint.
Background
- The resident is the leaseholder of the property, a flat within a building owned by the landlord. It is responsible for multiple buildings on the same estate.
- On 9 December 2022, the resident reported a repair issue to the landlord about the magnetic locking system on the bike shed for his block. He followed this with a second email on 13 December 2022, advising that it had given residents of other blocks keys for the mechanical lock to this bike shed and that these residents could access the space, making it difficult for residents of his block to use their designated shed.
- The resident complained to the landlord on 10 April 2023, as it had not completed repairs to the bike shed locking system and it had closed the repair on its system. He also said that its communication had been poor, and it had not provided sufficient update about the repairs. It acknowledged his complaint on 17 April 2023.
- The landlord responded to the resident at stage 1 of its complaints process on 24 April 2023. It explained that it was having wider issues on the estate with the overall access control system and the steps it was taking to address this, including a full access system upgrade. It explained that this was the reason it had closed the repair on its system, as it was addressing the wider issue. It stated that its system did not allow for residents to see closed communal repairs but that he could contact it for updates with or without a reference number. It apologised for its poor communication in relation to the repair and offered £50 compensation for this.
- The resident requested that the landlord escalate his complaint to stage 2 on 25 April 2023. He said that the fact it was unable to determine who had a copy of the key for his bike shed was a security issue. He maintained that there was a lack of communication between the landlord, residents, and its contractors and that he felt that its online system was not fit for purpose.
- On 19 June 2023, the landlord provided the resident with its stage 2 complaint response. It said that it had not correctly managed repairs to the bike shed and agreed that its lack of communication had adversely affected him. It stated that it would provide team training to improve this. It offered a total of £275 compensation and a reimbursement of management fee to all residents.
- The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and brought his complaint to this Service for investigation.
Assessment and findings
Bike shed repairs.
- Following the resident’s report of issues with the bike shed to the landlord on 9 December 2022, its contractor attended the site on an unknown date in December 2022 and found that the issue linked to an access system problem across the estate. However, there is no evidence to show that it took any further action prior to 8 February 2023 when it chased its contractor for an update, or that it communicated with him about the matter until 14 February 2023. Its repairs policy states that it aims to complete a standard repair within 20 working days of the report. In this case, it exceeded the 20 working days and failed to communicate with the resident.
- The landlord’s update to the resident on 14 February 2023 was that it had escalated the repair so it could get someone to attend and investigate both the repair and why residents of other blocks could access the bike shed. It has provided no evidence that it attended this ahead of his chaser email on 26 February 2023 and his complaint on 10 April 2023. It remained in excess of its policy timescales and its communication about the matter remained poor.
- On 17 April 2023, the landlord emailed its contractor to determine which stage repairs were at. The contractor confirmed that nothing had changed since they attended the site in December 2022 and that it would need a specialist contractor to fix the wider issue. It used this information to provide its stage 1 complaint response. In its response, it explained that it was having difficulties with the wider-scale repair and as such, it was unable to programme fobs or change who had access to the bike shed. Its response to this point was poor, as it was aware that access was not by fob at this time, and it offered no solution to this.
- Also in its complaint response, the landlord explained that residents are unable to see communal repairs on its customer-facing system. It acknowledged that this would be frustrating and advised the resident that he can contact it for updates. It fairly explained that it had closed the repair for the bike shed as it was managing this under the wider repair for the systems on the estate. It apologised for poor communication, explaining that changes to staff would not have helped and offered £50 compensation for this. Its response was clear when discussing its online system and it did positively acknowledge its failures in communication. However, it did not offer sufficient information to the resident about his concerns around bike shed access and repairs.
- The resident’s escalation request challenged communications from the landlord in which it said that residents from other blocks could not access the bike shed for his block. He remained concerned about the security of the bike shed. He further explained the issues he was having with its customer-facing system, including being unable to find specific communal repairs that he had logged without checking through every single communal repair raised by all residents.
- Prior to writing its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord had a phone conversation with the resident on 19 May 2023 to better understand his concerns and discuss a mutually agreeable way forward on certain elements of his complaint. It followed up this call with an email explaining that it would be unable to provide its complaint response within policy timescales due to annual leave. It demonstrated good practice and showed a customer-focused approach by completing these actions.
- The landlord changed contractors to complete the estate wide system issue in June 2023 and booked works with them for 26 June 2023. This was a positive step forward as it had determined that the original contractor was unable to repair the issue and that this was causing growing frustration for all residents.
- In the landlord’s stage 2 response, it advised that its new contractor would be attending to complete the repair. It explained that it had not updated the logged repair online in December 2022 so he could not see the status of this. It apologised for this and for its poor communication. It acknowledged that it had not given enough focus to his security concerns about access to the bike shed and that it should have given a solution for this. It agreed that it should hold records of who has a key to the shed and would need to complete the repair of the magnetic plate, conduct a bike audit, and change the shed lock. Its response to this complaint point was reasonable and appropriately acknowledged its failings, offering compensation of £125 for this complaint point.
- In relation to the resident’s customer-facing system concerns, the landlord felt that it had adequately explained why he could not see the closed repair in its stage 1 response but also that it had not provided him with direction on providing further feedback on system usage and issues. It offered compensation of £25 for this element of the complaint and explained that it had fortnightly meetings about its online system and updates it was making to make this easier for residents to use. Its response to this complaint point was thorough and honest.
- The landlord acknowledged that its lack of communication had adversely affected the resident. It stated that the frequent staff changes had added to this. It had recently started to provide updates on its online system, but he had not received these due to an IT issue, which it had raised internally. It advised staff to send updates to him by email until it resolved the issue. It was also compiling a table of regular contractor visits to the estate for all residents. It stated it would run team training about the importance of updating residents about repairs and that it had arranged quarterly meetings with the residents’ association to ensure consistent communication. It offered a further £100 in compensation for this complaint point. This was a thorough response to the issues faced by the resident and an appropriate approach to making improvements for the benefit of all residents.
- Finally, the landlord stated that its management of reported issues had slipped in recent months due to frequent staff changes. As such, it was providing a management fee refund to all residents. This demonstrated that it understood the impact its failings had had on its residents and an ongoing attempt to put things right.
- Where there are failings by a landlord, as is the case here, this Service will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord (apology, training, compensation, and actions going forward) 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 the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles, which are to be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
- Overall, the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response was thorough, and the remedies offered were reasonable. Its compensation policy allows for payments of up to £50 where the service as not met standards and up to £125 where service has markedly failed to meet required standards or where the issue took longer than expected to resolve. Both levels account for the impact on a resident, including distress and inconvenience. The total payment offered in this case for this complaint point was £225, comprising smaller payments as previously detailed. These offers were fair and appropriate in line with its policy.
- The landlord’s offer of actions going forward to put things right were good and the apologies made were appropriate. Planning to complete a bike audit and change the locks to the shed would have alleviated the resident’s concerns about security. It completed repairs to the estate access system on 27 June 2023 and this included the fob system for the bike shed. Its willingness to train staff demonstrated its ability to learn from outcomes. Usually in these circumstances, a finding of reasonable redress would be appropriate.
- However, during a phone conversation with the resident on 7 October 2024, he advised this Service that the landlord had not completed the bike audit or changed the key lock on the bike shed. He stated that he had also not received the offered refund of his management fee. He also advised of concerns that following repairs, his personal key fob allows him access to a variety of blocks on the estate that he has no need for. Considering this, a finding of service failure is appropriate as it has not followed through on the actions offered as part of its complaint response. This finding is based on the fact that incomplete action has been the running theme of the events in this case. It would be unfair to the resident to continue to rely on the landlord’s promises which it does not keep. It has been necessary to ensure, through our intervention, that it finally takes effective action to resolve the issue.
Complaint handling
- The landlord has also not disputed that there were failings in its complaint handling. It provided its stage 2 response 36 working days after his escalation request, which exceeded its policy timescale of a 20-working day response for stage 2 complaints.
- In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord offered £50 compensation and apologised for its delayed response. This offer was in line with its own compensation guidance and was appropriate in the circumstances. Its total compensation offer across both complaint points was £275.
- The landlord’s apology and compensation demonstrated good adherence to the dispute resolution principles. It acknowledged that its complaint handling had fallen below its expected standards and offered the resident appropriate redress for this. As such, a finding of reasonable redress is appropriate for the landlord’s handling of the resident’s formal complaint.
Determination
- In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repair and access issues with a communal bike shed, including communication.
- In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the complainant, which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the complaints about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated formal complaint.
Orders and recommendations
Orders
- The landlord is ordered to:
- Pay the resident its previous offer of £275 compensation if it has not done so already.
- Confirm with the resident when it will be providing reimbursement of management fees as previously offered and the total amount of this.
- Provide the resident with a written apology for failing to complete the offers it made at stage 2.
- Arrange to complete a bike audit in the communal bike shed for the resident’s block in line with its communal areas policy and provide the resident with a timescale for this.
- Inspect the communal bike shed for the resident’s block to ensure it has completed all repairs. If it has not completed them, it must provide the resident with its intentions relating to these repairs going forward.
- The landlord must provide evidence of compliance with the above orders to this Service within 4 weeks of this decision.
- Within 6 weeks of this decision, the landlord is ordered to:
- Arrange to change the locks to the communal bike shed for the resident’s block at its own cost and provide the resident with a date for these works to take place.
- Compile and maintain a list of all residents with access to the relevant bike shed.
Recommendations
- This Service recommends that the landlord consider how it could improve its communication through its online system with residents who report communal repairs.