Read our new Corporate Strategy 2025-30 and Business Plan 2025-26.

Notting Hill Genesis (NHG) (202313540)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202313540

Notting Hill Genesis (NHG)

25 February 2025

 

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 handing of:
  1. the resident’s request for compensation, following a flood.
  2. the associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is a shared ownership leaseholder. The landlord is a housing association. The property is a 2-bedroom flat.
  2. The resident reported sewage backing up from the toilet and flooding the property on 9 December 2022. A contractor attended 4 hours later to clear the blockage and reported they left the site clean and tidy.
  3. The resident asked the landlord to provide compensation for the flood damage to their personal belongings on 10 occasions between 9 December 2022 and 16 May 2023. The landlord responded 4 times during that period. It told the resident they must claim for any damaged possessions through their own contents insurance.
  4. The resident raised a complaint on 16 May 2023. They said they did not have contents insurance and asked the landlord to cover their losses or they would escalate the issue.
  5. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 29 June 2023. It said:
  1. it had already told the resident they needed to claim for damaged possessions through contents insurance
  2. it had already told the resident if the flooring was damaged, they would need to claim through the landlord’s building insurance
  3. it apologised for the inconvenience caused and said it would arrange for the stack pipe to be descaled
  4. it had already offered £250 for the inconvenience caused.
  1. The resident asked to escalate their complaint on 1 July 2023. They said they were not happy with the level of compensation offered. They also said the landlord had been willfully negligent in its responsibility to maintain the pipes. They asked the landlord when it last completed maintenance on the pipes and what was the schedule for further maintenance.
  2. The landlord refused to escalate the complaint to stage 2 on 13 July 2023. It said its complaint policy says it does not need to escalate insurance matters. It confirmed it maintained the stack pipes on a reactive basis and did not have a maintenance contract. It also said it would arrange for the stack pipe to be cleaned and serviced, and would look into getting a maintenance contract for the communal stack pipe on a quarterly or 6 monthly basis.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handing of the resident’s request for compensation, following a flood

  1. The landlord’s repairs policy says it is responsible for repairing issues with drainage and blockages. It says a serious sewage or up surging drainage issue is classed as an emergency repair. These should be attended within 4 hours and works to make safe or temporarily repair should be completed at this visit or within 24 hours.
  2. The landlord’s repairs policy also says it is responsible for insuring the properties it owns. However, residents are responsible for insuring their own contents.
  3. The resident reported the flooding issue on 9 December 2022. The landlord arranged for a contractor to attend within 4 hours. This is in line with its repairs policy and was the appropriate action to take.
  4. The resident then contacted the landlord 5 times between 9 and 13 December 2022 about the issue. They provided photographs of the damage caused and asked how to claim compensation for loss of work and for damage to property and possessions. There is no evidence the landlord responded to the claims for compensation, which is inappropriate.
  5. The resident chased the issue on 9 January 2023. The landlord responded the same day apologising for the delay. It said it believed damaged items would be covered by the resident’s contents insurance. But it would send the list of damaged items to its insurance team for advice. It was reasonable for the landlord to seek further guidance on the matter from its insurance team.
  6. The resident chased the landlord for a response a further 2 times on 10 and 21 February 2023. The landlord then responded on 23 February 2023 and said the resident would need to claim for any items damaged under their own contents insurance. It also told the resident they could claim for any damage to flooring under the landlord’s building insurance. The delay in responding to the resident was unreasonable.
  7. When a resident requests compensation for damage to belongings, a landlord should consider if its actions contributed to the damage. If the landlord disputes it is at fault, it should either refer the resident to their own contents insurance, or to its own insurers, who would establish negligence or liability to pay. In this case, it shows the landlord consulted with its insurance team before advising the resident to claim under their own contents insurance. This was appropriate.
  8. Following further emails from the resident, the landlord emailed them on 2 May 2023. It reiterated they would need to claim on their own contents insurance, but offered £250 for the time, inconvenience and stress experienced. This offer is higher than the range of awards set out in our remedies guidance for cases such as this where there was a minor failure by the landlord in the service it provided, such as the delays replying to requests for compensation.
  9. It is the resident’s view the landlord has been willfully negligent in its responsibility to maintain the pipes. However, there is no obligation on the landlord to complete regular maintenance or servicing work to the pipes. The landlord has also not committed to doing so in any of its policies or procedures. As soon as the landlord was made aware of the flood, it arranged an emergency repair in line with its repairs policy. It is therefore not possible for the Ombudsman to conclude the landlord neglected any repair responsibility.
  10. In addition, the repairs policy says residents are responsible for insuring their personal belongings. Therefore, the landlord was acting in line with its policy when it advised the resident it would not offer compensation for damages. The Ombudsman considers this to be appropriate.
  11. Since raising the complaint, the landlord told the resident it would be organising for the stack pipe to be cleaned and serviced, and it would look into getting a maintenance contract for the communal stack pipe on a quarterly or 6 monthly basis. This is a reasonable and appropriate course of action to take.
  12. In summary, the Ombudsman finds that the landlord has made an offer of reasonable redress, prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the complaint about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for compensation, following a flood.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

  1. Under the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code), landlords must respond to the complaint at stage 1 within 10 working days of logging the complaint. They must also provide a final stage 2 response within 20 working days of escalating the complaint.
  2. The landlord’s complaint policy says at stage 1 it will acknowledge complaints within 2 working days and provide a formal response within 10 working days. At stage 2, a manager that was not involved in the original decision will review the complaint. It will acknowledge the request within 2 working days and issue a formal response within 20 working days.
  3. Under the landlord’s complaint policy there are some exclusions, where the landlord will not deal with issues its residents raise. One exclusion is where its insurers are dealing with a claim. It says liability claims should be referred directly to its insurance team. It also says all decisions made by insurers are final and any complaint in relation to an insurance claim should be made directly to the insurers.
  4. The evidence shows the last contact from the resident was an email on 16 May 2023 asking the landlord to cover their losses or they would escalate the matter. The landlord then logged a stage 1 complaint on 15 June 2023. It recorded the resident was unhappy with the landlord’s service concerning the flood and wanted to claim compensation for damaged items. In the absence of any further evidence, the Ombudsman must conclude the delay logging the complaint was unreasonable.
  5. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 29 June 2023. This was 10 working days after logging the complaint, in line with the Code and its own policy. However, it was 32 working days after the resident’s last contact. Had the landlord logged the complaint sooner, it could have issued its response much earlier.
  6. The resident asked to escalate to stage 2 on 1 July 2023. The landlord did not acknowledge the request, and the resident had to chase it up on 10 July 2023. The landlord therefore failed to comply with the Code or its own complaint policy. This was not appropriate.
  7. On 13 July 2023 the landlord emailed the resident and refused to escalate to stage 2 as it was an insurance matter. It said its complaint policy excluded insurance matters. This was dealt with by the same staff member that issued the stage 1 complaint response. The section of the complaint policy that excludes insurance matters specifically says it is when insurers are dealing with a claim. It also says any complaint in relation to an insurance claim should be made directly to the insurers. There is no evidence the landlord’s insurers dealt with any claim, just that they provided advice. It was therefore inappropriate for the landlord to refuse to escalate the complaint to stage 2. It was also inappropriate for the same staff member that issued the stage 1 complaint response to deal with the escalation request. The landlord therefore failed to comply with the Code or its own complaint policy. This was not appropriate.
  8. In summary, landlords must have an effective complaint process to provide a good service to its residents. An effective complaint process means landlords can fix problems quickly, learn from their mistakes and build good relationships with residents. In this case there were delays in the landlord acknowledging the complaint at stage 1. This in turn resulted in the stage 1 response not being sent until 32 working days later. The landlord then inappropriately refused to escalate the complaint to stage 2, and there is no evidence it arranged for a manager not involved in the original decision to review the complaint.
  9. The Ombudsman finds maladministration for the failures identified in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint. Therefore, we are ordering the landlord to pay £100 for the time, trouble and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s complaint handling failures. This is within the bracket this Service would award for failures of this nature.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Scheme, the landlord made an offer of reasonable redress in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for compensation, following a flood.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord must within 28 days of the date of this determination:
    1. Provide the resident with an apology for the failings outlined in this report.
    2. Pay the resident a total compensation of £100 for the time, trouble and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s complaint handling failures.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should pay the resident the £250 compensation it previously offered (if it has not yet done so).