Notting Hill Genesis (NHG) (202320106)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202320106

Notting Hill Genesis (NHG)

13 May 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. response to repairing the resident’s boiler.
2. complaint handling.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant who lives in a 2nd floor flat. The landlord is a housing association. The landlord has recorded on its systems that the resident is vulnerable due to her age.
The resident has a representative who made the complaint on her behalf. The resident and representative shall both be referred to as “the resident” for the purpose of this report.
On 9 December 2022 the resident contacted the landlord’s out of hours repair service. She said that her boiler was making loud noises and shaking when switched on. As a result, she had turned the boiler off.
The landlord’s contractor visited the resident’s property on 12 December 2022, to inspect the boiler. It was unable to complete the repair, as the boiler needed a new printed circuit board (PCB).
The resident contacted the landlord on 14 December 2022 to complain about the time it was taking to repair her boiler. She said:
1. the landlord’s contractor did not call her to confirm when it would attend her property, which it’s out of hours service had told her would happen. As a result of this, she had to take time off work to allow access to the property at short notice.
2. the contractor arranged to return to the resident’s property on 17 December and offered her a temporary electric fan heater until then. She declined this due to concerns about the high costs of running it.
3. it was unreasonable, during cold weather, for the landlord to take over a week to repair the boiler, especially as she was “sat shivering under an electric blanket.”
The contractor attended the resident’s property again on 17 December 2022. It fitted the PCB but then identified the boiler had a faulty gas valve, so it was unable to complete the repair.
On 30 December 2022 the contractor visited the resident’s property and replaced the boiler’s gas valve. However, it said that it needed additional parts, in to order complete the repair. After the visit the resident contacted the landlord as a carbon monoxide alarm was going off. She said that the landlord had told her to open her windows and to tell other residents in the building to evacuate.
The landlord contacted the contractor on 4 January 2023 for an update on the boiler repair. The contractor confirmed the resident had been in touch and it had told her it was still awaiting parts for the boiler. It said it had arranged a provisional appointment to complete the repair for 16 January 2023 and would contact the resident as soon as possible to confirm this.
The resident contacted the landlord on 5 January 2023. She said she was concerned about how its contractor had treated her and was “appalled” the landlord had not contacted her to see if she needed support or assistance. She stated she had contacted the local authority’s environmental health team, who had arranged a further appointment with the contractor to visit her property.
On 6 January 2023 the landlord contacted the resident. It advised its contractor had said it was awaiting parts to repair her boiler and had an appointment to visit her property on 16 January 2023.
The landlord’s contractor visited the resident’s property on 7 January 2023. It fitted the additional parts and successfully tested the boiler, to complete the repair.
The resident contacted the landlord on 13 January 2023, as she was frustrated with the landlord’s lack of engagement with the complaint she raised on 14 December 2022. She said:
1. the time the landlord had taken to repair her boiler was unreasonable.
2. the landlord’s communication had been poor.
3. the contractor’s communication had been poor.
4. the advice the landlord had given her relating to the carbon monoxide alarm was inadequate, and she felt this demonstrated a lack of understanding of Health and Safety procedures.
5. she was seeking £7,500 compensation from the landlord.
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 19 January 2023. It apologised for the distress it had caused the resident and said:
1. the repair to her boiler had taken longer than expected.
2. it agreed its contractor should have handled the repair better.
3. it understood the resident declined the offer of temporary heaters due to her concerns about the running costs. It would reimburse her costs if she was ever in a similar situation.
4. it had provided feedback to its contractor to try and improve its service.
5. it awarded the resident £45 compensation, for loss of heating.
6. it upheld her complaint and awarded a further £100 for the inconvenience and distress.
The resident contacted the landlord on 31 January 2023. She was dissatisfied with its stage 1 response and the amount of compensation it had offered her. She said:
1. she was still seeking resolution that adequately addressed her concerns and compensated her for the considerable inconvenience and distress.
2. being without hot water or heating for an extended period of time had caused her significant physical and emotional distress.
3. the landlord’s response did not address the advice it had given her, when her carbon monoxide alarm had been triggered, which she considered was “highly inappropriate.”
4. the compensation did not match the landlord’s complaints policy, as she felt there had been multiple service failures. As a result, she was seeking an additional £7,500 in compensation, from the landlord.
5. she had twice called the landlord to discuss its stage 1 letter, but her calls went unanswered. As a result, she requested an opportunity to speak to the landlord so she could relay her experiences and feelings on the matter.
On 7 March 2023 the landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response. It said a detailed complaint review pack had been sent to an independent resident reviewer and manager. Having taken their feedback into account it provided the following response:
1. it took 26 days to complete the boiler repair, which it acknowledged was too long, and its contractor should have escalated this to the landlord sooner.
2. it has told its contractor that it must tell the landlord when it cannot fix a boiler after two visits.
3. it was sorry the repair to the boiler took longer than expected, which fell below its service standards.
4. there were no grounds for it to agree to the additional compensation the resident sought, as she had not provided evidence that would support an award of that value.
5. it awarded the resident £150 compensation for the inconvenience caused, £45 for loss of heating, plus £130 for costs towards temporary heaters.
6. it upheld the resident’s complaint and agreed its contractor had failed.
7. it had put measures in place to improve its service.
On 20 March 2023 the independent resident reviewer sent its case notes of the stage 2 complaint to the landlord. The reviewer identified a service failure by the landlord, due to the resident not having hot water or heating and, the time taken to repair the boiler. The reviewer was unsure why the landlord’s stage 2 response had offered compensation to the resident for the costs towards temporary heaters, when she had declined the offer. As the landlord did not provide the resident with temporary heaters, the reviewer suggested this was removed and the compensation for inconvenience caused, increased to £200, as well as providing the resident with information on cost-of-living support.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

There are no records provided by the landlord recording the details of the conversation regarding the carbon monoxide alarm. While we acknowledge that this was raised by the resident as part of her complaint, we are an impartial service, and this means that in the absence of evidence we cannot make a finding. We can however look at how the landlord responded to this aspect of the resident’s complaint through its complaint’s procedure.

The landlord’s response to repairing the resident’s boiler

The landlord’s repairs policy describes a serious failure of heating or hot water, as an emergency repair. It aims to attend emergency repairs within four hours and have all major services restored within 24 hours. All further work would also be completed within 24 hours, within reason.
The landlord’s compensation procedure states that compensation is paid at a rate of 10% of the daily rent for each day without heating or hot water.
After the resident reported the boiler repair on 9 December 2022, it was a further 3 days before the landlord’s contractor first attended her property on 12 December 2023. The landlord failed to meet the target in its repairs policy, for attending and completing the repair. This delayed diagnosis of the fault in the resident’s boiler and would have caused her unnecessary distress.
The contractor returned to complete the repair to the boiler 5 days later, on 17 December 2023. It is unclear whether this delay was due to the need for the contractor to source the PCB for the boiler. However, the contractor did communicate the delay to the resident.
At the visit on 17 December 2022, the contractor identified the boiler also had a faulty gas valve. It is reasonable to conclude that the contractor would not have been able to diagnose the faulty gas valve until the boiler’s PCB had been replaced. However, at this stage the resident had been without hot water and heating for 8 days and was then subject to a further delay. It is unclear whether the landlord was aware of the ongoing delays to repairing the boiler. However, the evidence indicates a lack of oversight and ownership of the repair by the landlord. It is the landlord’s responsibility to complete repairs within a reasonable time, which it cannot delegate this to its contractors. Given the urgent need to restore the resident’s heating and hot water, it should have increased the scrutiny and monitoring of the contractor’s activity. By failing to do so the landlord did not contact the resident to check her wellbeing, which would have been appropriate especially knowing she was vulnerable due to her age.
The contractor returned to the resident’s property on 30 December 2022, to replace the faulty gas valve. However, it then identified it needed additional parts to complete the repair to the boiler. The landlord’s records do not show what these parts were, or if its contractor could have reasonably identified these were needed when it attended on 17 December 2022.
The landlord’s records show that the resident contacted it on 4 January 2023, regarding the boiler repair. Its records show she was distressed due to the boiler still not being repaired. While it is not always possible for an issue to be identified and resolved at first inspection, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have done more, as it was aware the resident was without heating and hot water for a period of time. Its records show it only contacted the contractor to find out the status of the repair. Although the landlord did offer to provide the resident with temporary heaters, it would have been appropriate for it to have provided the resident with reassurance that it would cover the costs of temporary heaters, checked to see if she had access to hot water for bathing, considered her vulnerabilities and regularly updated the resident on the status of the repair.
The resident contacted the landlord again on 5 January 2023 to chase the boiler repair. She raised concerns about the landlord’s lack of support for her and as a result she had contacted the local authority’s environmental health team for help. This was a further missed opportunity for the landlord to contact the resident to discuss her support needs. Its records show it only contacted her to say it was awaiting new parts and its contractor had provisionally booked a repair appointment for 16 January 2023. Its failure to take proactive steps to support the resident, along with the poor communication between the landlord and its contractor, meant it was unaware of the financial concerns the resident had in running the temporary heaters. The absence of help and support from the landlord meant the resident was without heating or hot water for 29 days, during winter, which would have undoubtedly caused her distress.
The landlord’s contractor completed the repair to the resident’s boiler on 7 January 2024. It is unclear if the contractors visit had been brought forward due to the intervention of the local authority’s environmental health team. Although it was 9 days before the scheduled appointment, the resident had still been without hot water or heating for a prolonged period.
The resident’s complaint on 13 January 2023, clearly set out the reasons for her dissatisfaction. The landlord awarded the resident £145 compensation in its stage 1 response, which it then increased to £325 at stage 2. It provided the resident with an apology, acknowledged that the repair took too long to complete and gave advice to assist the resident if the situation happened again. It also outlined measures it had put in place to improve its service delivery, which was reasonable for it to do.
There is no record that the landlord responded to the resident after she complained, on 14 December 2022 and it did not take pro-active steps to support the resident. It is concerning that it failed to do so given the time of year and the resident’s age.
Overall, while the landlord identified its response to the repair was inadequate but it has shown that it has taken steps to learn from the outcome of the case. It failed to meet the targets set out in its repairs policy, to attend emergency repairs within four hours, have all major services restored within 24 hours and complete further work within 24 hours, within reason. It did not provide the resident with an adequate explanation for its failure to meet these targets. It did not consider the resident’s vulnerability and the significant effect of having no heating or hot water would have had on her at that time of the year. There were 4 repair visits by the landlord before the resident’s boiler was fixed. While it is unclear if each issue with the boiler was independent from the next, there is no evidence that shows the landlord communicated this to the resident, which is a concern.
The delay in the landlord repairing the resident’s boiler adversely affected her. The compensation awarded by the landlord for loss of heating was in keeping with its compensation procedure. However, its overall offer of £325 was not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation. It did not appropriately consider the resident’s age, distress caused or the severity of the situation.
Although the failure by the landlord adversely affected the resident, there is no evidence this had a serious detrimental impact on her. Therefore, we find there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to repairing the resident’s boiler. In line with our remedies guidance, we order the landlord to pay the resident £300 compensation, in addition to the £325 it has already offered, which we consider appropriate redress to put things right.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The landlord’s complaints policy states:
1. a complaint can be an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by the organisation, its own staff, or those acting on its behalf, affecting an individual resident or group of residents. An expression of dissatisfaction does not need to include the word complaint to be handled in line with its policy.
2. if the complaint is regarding a gas issue, the heating services team have 5 working days to work with their gas contractors to resolve the issue as a quick fix. If the issue cannot be resolved, the complaint will be dealt with by a member of its heating services team at stage 1.
3. residents have the option to have complaints reviewed by an independent resident reviewer and its response will include the reviewer’s feedback.
Section 5.6 of the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) states, when a complaint is logged at Stage 1 or escalated to Stage 2, landlords must set out their understanding of the complaint and the outcomes the resident is seeking. The Code will refer to this as “the complaint definition.” If any aspect of the complaint is unclear, the resident must be asked for clarification.
There is no record in the landlord’s evidence that it sent the resident acknowledgement letters at either stage of the complaint process. This has hampered this investigation, as it is unclear when the landlord logged the resident’s complaint, or if she was aware of its complaint definition. However, the landlord’s complaint responses failed to set out the complaint points the resident raised. This indicates that it did not follow section 5.6 of the Code, which is a concern.
The evidence indicates the landlord logged the resident’s complaint after she contacted it on 13 January 2023. However, she complained to it on 14 December 2022 and made an expression of dissatisfaction on 5 January 2023. It failed to raise a complaint on either occasion, which disadvantaged her as this meant the landlord missed an opportunity to resolve the issue at an earlier stage. The landlord’s communication with the resident was poor which is likely to have caused her detriment and confusion.
The resident clearly set out the issues for the landlord to consider as part of her complaint when she contacted it on 13 January 2023. Although the landlord sent its stage 1 response 4 working days later, on 19 January 2023. This was 23 working days after the resident considered the landlord had logged her complaint. However, its stage 1 response only considered the time taken to repair the boiler and her dissatisfaction. It is unclear why it did not fully address the resident’s concerns, and in failing to follow the Code, the landlord is likely to have caused the resident further confusion.
The resident told the landlord on 31 January 2023 she was dissatisfied with its stage 1 response. She felt the compensation it awarded did not reflect the distress being without heating or hot water had caused her. Although the resident wanted to discuss the issue with the landlord, there is no record that it did so. Had it done so, it is reasonable to conclude the resident would have alerted the landlord that it had not addressed all her concerns in its complaint response.
The landlord’s stage 2 response does consider the resident’s request for additional compensation of £7,500. It refused this, which we consider was reasonable for it to do so. However, it failed to fully consider and provide an explanation for the poor communication, the reason for the delay in repairing the resident’s boiler and makes no mention of the carbon monoxide alarm issue.
The landlord’s failure to consider the carbon monoxide alarm issue, is a concern given the serious nature of the issue the resident raised. The evidence shows the resident contacted the landlord on 31 January 2023 to raise her concern that its stage 1 response did not address this issue, yet there is no evidence that the landlord did anything at this point to address it and put things right.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response before it received the resident reviewer’s feedback. The resident reviewer identified that the resident declined temporary heaters, so they were unsure why it included this and suggested increasing the compensation for inconvenience caused instead. They also suggested the landlord provided the resident with cost-of-living support. Both recommendations were reasonable, and it is disappointing the landlord did not follow its complaints policy and include the resident reviewer’s feedback in its stage 2 response.
Neither of the landlord’s complaint responses fully considered the 5 points the resident raised, on 13 January 2023. In failing to do so, the landlord did not provide a clear explanation of the reasons for the delay in repairing the boiler or why its communication was poor. It would have been reasonable to include this, so the resident understood the issues that caused the delay.
Overall, the landlord’s complaint responses were of a poor standard and did not adequately address the resident’s concerns. It did not follow its complaints policy, its communication with the resident was poor, it did not acknowledge or apologise for failing to log her complaint at an earlier stage and she had to spend time and effort in following this up. All of which likely caused the resident confusion and impacted on the landlord and tenant relationship.
We find there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. In line with our remedies guidance, we order the landlord to pay the resident £150 compensation, which we consider appropriate redress to put things right.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to repairing the resident’s boiler.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks, the landlord is ordered to:
1. provide an apology letter to the resident acknowledging the failures identified in this report. In drafting this letter, the landlord should consider the Ombudsman’s apologies guidance available on our website.
2. pay the resident £775 compensation comprising of:
  1. £300 for the failures identified in its response to repairing the resident’s boiler.
  2. £150 for the failures identified in its complaint handling.
  3. £325 that it offered the resident in its stage 2 complaint response if it has not already done so.
3. arrange a meeting with the resident so that it can fully discuss the issues she has raised, and to allow her feedback to inform changes in service delivery.

Recommendations

It is recommended the landlord ensures that its staff responsible for investigating complaints;
1. receive relevant training when necessary to ensure compliance with our Complaint Handling Code.
2. follow its complaints policy when investigating resident’s complaints.