Notting Hill Genesis (NHG) (202336636)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202336636

Notting Hill Genesis (NHG)

18 December 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:
1. handling of the resident’s reports of:
  1. lift breakdowns.
  2. the smell and the overflow of the communal bins.
  3. the communal front door repairs.
  4. the condition of the communal carpets.
2. handling of the resident’s request to be on its housing priority list.
3. communication in relation to the above matters.
The Ombudsman has also assessed the landlord’s:
1. complaint handling.
2. record keeping.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. He has lived in his 1 bedroom, first floor flat, with his partner and young child since April 2008. He has told this Service that he has mental health concerns.
On 12 April 2023 the resident contacted the landlord to raise concerns about the smell emanating from the communal bins. He also expressed concerns about the lifts breaking down “constantly” and that there were problems with the communal front door after it had been damaged by rough sleepers. He had previously informed the landlord of these issues and had become tired chasing matters.
On 27 April 2023 the resident reported that he was unable to gain access to his building again as his fob was not working. He said that it appeared that someone had attempted to break into the building. He asked whether there was CCTV. On 11 May 2023 the landlord contacted the resident. It said that it had raised an order to repair the door. It said that it was looking to find a permanent fix.
On 15 May 2023 the resident reiterated his concerns about the lift to the landlord and added:
1. the communal front door was left unsecure for over a week. Rough sleepers were entering the building and he and his family did not feel safe.
2. he had not invited guests to visit in years because of the smell from the bins “every other week.”
3. he had requested to be moved up the landlord’s housing priority list. He had not received a response from the landlord.
At the end of May and in June 2023 the resident reported that the buzzer for the communal front door was not working. The landlord confirmed on 15 June 2023 that it had raised a repair.
A few days later, the resident reiterated his concerns about the lift. He added that the smell of the bins attracted insects and rodents. He also reported that the door had stopped working again. He said that the rough sleepers entering the building were causing a nuisance by smoking in the communal areas which regularly set off the fire alarm. He explained that he was “mentally drained from all of the problems.”
In July 2023 the resident reiterated his previous concerns and requests. He added:
1. the smells from the bins and the human waste [left on the carpets by the rough sleepers] were “unbearable most days.”
2. his son had an unknown skin rash from “head to toe” which he considered was caused by insects from the bins. His wife spent time “debugging” the flat as they were “everywhere.” It happened “a lot” when the bins overflowed.
3. he felt like he was paying to live in an unhealthy and unsafe property which was getting worse each year.
Throughout August and September, the resident made further contact with the landlord about his concerns. The landlord confirmed that an order had been raised to repair the front door on 24 August 2023. However, the resident remained unhappy with the landlord’s response to his concerns and raised a formal complaint on 23 October 2023. Within this, the resident referred to the frequency of lift breakdowns, the smell of the bins, rough sleepers causing a nuisance, human waste on the communal carpets, his request to be moved up the housing priority list and the landlord’s lack of response.
On 16 November 2023 the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response. It said:
1. it had not responded to some of the resident’s emails. It offered him £50.00 for the failure.
2. it would update the resident about his requests and concerns on a weekly basis.
3. the resident was currently adequately housed and was a band C priority. It explained that he could appeal the decision. It asked the resident to explain why he considered that his priority banding should be increased along with supporting evidence. It explained that the information would be submitted to its lettings panel to review.
4. the regular lift breakdowns had caused the resident inconvenience. It had made the decision to install a new one. It was in the process of selecting a suitable contractor for the work. It recognised that there had been a “serious failure” in service standards that had “significantly impacted” the resident and his family. It offered the resident £250 compensation for “the persistent failure of the lift over a prolonged period.”
5. it would inspect the communal area on or around 27 November 2023. The condition of the building would be assessed, and any identified works would be added to its cyclical programme. It invited the resident to join the inspection.
6. It had placed new bins in the area to help with the disposal of rubbish. It was in contact with external partners to resolve the matter. It had also arranged a joint inspection with its contractor for the following week. It invited the resident to the inspection. It said that the time it had taken to look into the matter had not been “ideal.” It offered the resident £150 compensation for stress and inconvenience.
On the same day the resident escalated his complaint. He said that the compensation was a “slap in the face” as most of the issues had been ongoing for 7 years. He wanted to be compensated for the ongoing issues for that duration.
On 21 December 2023 the resident raised concerns that the communal front door had been damaged again. He said that someone had damaged the self-closing mechanism. He explained that he considered that it may have been a rough sleeper attempting to gain access. He continued to raise his concerns that the door was unsecure in January and February 2024.
On 7 February 2024 the landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalated complaint. It apologised that it had not progressed it sooner. The resident responded and requested compensation for the mental health issues that he considered was caused by the landlord over the years. He also requested that the landlord refund him for the previous 7 years of service charge costs in relation to the bins, security issues and the lift. He said this was because that was the length of time that he had been complaining about the issues.
On 28 February 2024 the landlord visited the resident to discuss the ongoing issues with the front door and rough sleepers entering the building.
On 13 March 2024 the landlord issued its stage 2 response. It said:
1. it had not received the resident’s appeal statement in relation to his banding. Once received, it would submit it to its lettings panel. It confirmed that it had received some medical information from the resident to support his appeal.
2. the lift experienced intermittent issues for several years. It confirmed that reports of the lift malfunctioning dated back to 2018. It had not been able to find reports prior to 2018.
3. from September 2023, its lift contractor attended 6 times. It noted that the resident had reported a fault with the lift on more than 6 occasions. However, he did not receive “consistent” responses from it. It apologised for the lack of communication.
4. its contractors were often able to rectify the lift faults temporarily. However, it did not provide a lasting solution, as the lift continued to experience breakdowns. It apologised for the stress and inconvenience.
5. it was proceeding with “modernisation” works of the lift. The resident would shortly receive further information about the works.
6. it was unable to reimburse the service charges paid by the resident for the lift maintenance. This was because it covered expenses for maintaining, repairing, and servicing the lift.
7. once it became aware of the ongoing issues with the bin stores, it worked with the local authority to investigate why the bins were not being collected. It explained that bin collections were missed when access was restricted by third parties.
8. in December 2023, the local authority’s refuse team had been provided with the gate code, enabling them to conduct collections on the designated days. It also asked its contractors to ensure that the bins and any refuse were relocated to the designated area in anticipation of the collections.
9. although the issues regarding the refuse build up in the communal area had been resolved, the duration it took to address these concerns was not acceptable.
10. the resident reported a total of 19 repairs in 2023 for the communal front door. Its responses did not meet its standards. It was working with the police who had increased its patrols in and around the block to help deter antisocial behaviour. It invited the resident for an inspection of the communal area and explained that it would explore CCTV within the block.
It apologised for the lack of communication. It offered the following compensation and explained that the offer superseded its stage 1 offer:
1. £400 for the stress and inconvenience caused by the lift failures.
2. £250 for the stress and inconvenience caused by issues with the communal front door and the refuse build up.
3. £50 for its delayed stage 2 response.
4. £500 for poor communication.
The resident referred his complaint to this Service as he remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response.

Assessment and findings

Scope

The resident has explained that he considers the landlord’s conduct over the past 7 years has affected his mental health. We acknowledge the impact that the situation has had on the resident and do not seek to dispute his comments. However, this Service is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. Matters of personal injury or damage to health, their investigation and compensation, are not part of the complaints process, and are more appropriately addressed by way of the courts or the landlord’s liability insurer as a personal injury claim.
In his escalation request, the resident asked for the landlord to reimburse service charge that he had paid over the 7 preceding years. When responding at stage 2, the landlord advised that it could not reimburse the service charge in respect of the lift as it also covered maintenance, repairing and servicing. However, no comment was provided in relation to the service charge payable in respect of other elements the resident had complained about. We have addressed this further below when assessing the landlord’s complaint handling. The reason for the resident’s request is acknowledged. However, the Ombudsman encourages residents to raise complaints with their landlords at the time the events happened. This is because with the passage of time, evidence may be unavailable and personnel involved may have left an organisation, which makes it difficult for a thorough investigation to be carried out and for informed decisions to be made. Taking this into account and the availability and reliability of evidence, this assessment has not considered whether a refund of 7 years’ worth of service charges is warranted in this case. However, we have considered whether the landlord provided an appropriate response to the resident’s concerns and proportionate redress for the failings that had been identified.

Lift breakdowns

The tenancy agreement states that it is the landlord’s responsibility “to take reasonable care to keep the lifts in reasonable repair and fit for use.”
The landlord’s repairs and maintenance leaflet states that it would attend emergency matters and make temporary repairs within 24 hours. It states that it would carry out non-emergency repairs within 20 working days.
The landlord’s lift repair logs detail the following:
1. 2018 – 7 call outs.
2. 2019 – 8 call outs.
3. 2021 – 27 call outs.
4. 2022 -19 call outs.
5. January to September 2023 approximately 18 call outs.
It is unclear how many were reported by the resident. In addition, the landlord has not provided any records for 2020. Therefore, it is unclear if any and how many callouts were made in that year. For the call outs listed above, the records show that the landlord attended within 24 hours of each report and repaired the lift within 1-4 days. This was in line with its repair timescales.
The evidence available demonstrates that between April 2023 and August 2023 the resident raised his concerns that the lift was frequently breaking down. He said that it had been ongoing for 5 years and that the landlord’s “patchwork repairs” would only last a few days. He said that the landlord should replace the lift. Given the landlord’s records demonstrate an increase in callouts from 2021 compared to the previous years, it is understandable that the resident raised his concerns about the matter.
The evidence suggests that the landlord did not respond to any of the resident’s correspondence on the issues during this period. Its lack of responses meant that over a period of approximately 6 months the resident’s concerns went unanswered. The reason for the landlord’s lack of response is unclear. Nonetheless, it was unreasonable and caused the resident time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience.
The resident reiterated his concerns again in his October and November 2023 complaints.
The landlord appropriately acknowledged that the lift had been breaking down with frequency and that this would have been the cause of inconvenience to the resident. It offered £400 for the stress and inconvenience caused by the lift failures. The landlord’s response suggests that the compensation covered the period of the breakdowns from 2018 up until its stage 2 response. Given the evidence and the breakdowns that occurred over the period in question, we are satisfied that the landlord’s offer of £400 compensation was in line with our remedies guidance and was a reasonable offer of redress.
The landlord stated that it was unable to refund the resident’s service charges for the associated costs for the lift. The reason for the resident’s request is understood. However, the landlord appropriately explained that the charge was for the repairs and maintenance too, and not just to cover the provision of the lift. The landlord offered the resident proportionate compensation for the inconvenience caused by the breakdowns, and this was the appropriate remedy in the circumstances.
It also explained that “modernisation” works to the lift would be undertaken. Its response was appropriate given that the evidence provided shows that in early 2023 its contractor stated such works would improve the reliability of the lift service.
Overall, the landlord acknowledged that there were intermittent issues with the lift over a prolonged period of time. In recognition of this, it offered the resident reasonable compensation. It also informed the resident that it was going to carry out modernisation works to the lift. The landlord responses and efforts to put matters right were reasonable and appropriate. Therefore, we have found that there was reasonable redress by its handling of the resident’s concerns about the frequency of the lift breakdowns. The landlord’s lack of communication has been assessed separately.
It is noted that although the modernisation works were undertaken, the landlord and resident have told this Service that the issue with frequent breakdowns continue. The landlord has attributed this to the rough sleepers entering the building. Therefore, a recommendation has been made that the landlord review its position on the matter and provide the resident and this Service with its next steps to resolve the issue.

The smell and overflow of the bins

The communal bins were kept in a designated area within the resident’s building. Between April and October 2023, the resident made 8 separate reports about concerns relating to the bins. He explained that the smell from the bins was “overpowering.” He said that it attracted rodents and insects. He expressed concerns that the issues were affecting his home life. He explained his wife had to “constantly” debug their flat and his son developed a rash which he considered was from the insects.
There is no evidence to suggest that the landlord responded to any of the resident’s correspondence during that period. There is also no evidence that it investigated his concerns. The landlord’s lack of response meant that the resident’s ongoing concerns went unresolved for approximately 7 months at this point. That is concerning. Given the circumstances and the resident’s report that it was affecting his home and child’s health, that the landlord did not respond or take action was inappropriate and unreasonable. This caused the resident time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience. It is understandable that he then raised a complaint about the matter on 23 October 2023.
The evidence available demonstrates that it was not until November 2023 that the landlord took some meaningful action to investigate and resolve the matter. It raised the issue with internal and external partners and sought solutions to the problem. It ensured that the refuse team had access to the bin area so they could empty the bins. It also increased the frequency of its own contractors to clear the rubbish from the building. While significantly delayed, this was positive and demonstrated that it was taking steps to resolve the matter.
In its stage 1 response, the landlord acknowledged that the time it had taken to look into the matter was not “ideal”. In recognition of the stress and inconvenience caused, it offered the resident £150. When the resident escalated his complaint, he reiterated how the smell from the overflowing bins had affected his home life.
The landlord did not address the resident’s concerns in its stage 2 response. It would have been reasonable for it to have considered whether its failure to take timely action on the matter affected the resident’s enjoyment of his home. The evidence shows that it did. Several times throughout this case, the resident raised his concerns that:
1. he did not have visitors over because of the smell from the bins.
2. he could smell the bins in his home which affected his sleep and his eating.
3. his wife had to “debug” his flat because insects were coming from the overflowing bins.
This could have been reasonably avoided if the landlord had taken appropriate and proactive steps to resolve the matter. Therefore, while the landlord’s £150 compensation went some way to put matters right, it did not go far enough.
Given the circumstances, an order for the landlord to pay an additional £150 compensation has been made in line with the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance.
Overall, the landlord failed to take reasonable and timely steps to investigate and resolve the resident’s concerns. This meant that the resident had to endure the smell from the bins that permeated into his home for approximately 8 months. While the landlord offered the resident £150 compensation, it did not go far enough. Therefore, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the smell of the bins.
The communal front door

The landlord states that it will attend emergency repairs within 4 hours and carry out temporary repairs within 24 hours. Non-emergency repairs will be carried out within 20 working days.
On 12 April 2023 the resident raised concerns that rough sleepers had broken into the building and had damaged the communal front door. He said that it had become a regular occurrence. The landlord did not respond. The reason why it did not is unclear. Nonetheless, its lack of response meant that the resident’s concerns that the door was damaged went unanswered. There is also no evidence that the landlord raised an order to investigate the resident’s reports that the door was damaged at this time. This was unreasonable.
On 27 and 28 April 2023 the resident told the landlord that his fob to enter the building was not working. He said that this was not the first time, and he was unable to access his home if his wife was not in at the time. He attached a photo of the door and explained that it looked like someone had tried to break in again. He said that the door’s regular malfunctions may have been caused by the break-ins and damage to the door. The landlord’s records show that it raised an emergency order. However, it is unclear whether the landlord attended within its timescales. Its records also refer to an attendance on 10 May 2023. This was a considerable deviation from its emergency timescale of 24 hours. This also corroborates the resident’s account that the door was left unsecure for approximately a week at this time. While the reason for the delay is unclear, that there was one is a failing.
The landlord responded to the resident’s reports on 11 May 2023. There is no evidence to suggest that it had previously responded to the resident. However, within its correspondence, it said that it was looking for a “permanent fix”. No further detail was provided, and it is unclear from the evidence what further action the landlord took, if any. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to record further detail about why the door could not be fully repaired at the time. It would have also been reasonable for the landlord to have been more transparent in its dealings with the resident and to provide further information about the action it was intending to take.
On 30 May 2023 the resident reported that the front door’s buzzer was not working. The landlord raised an order the following day. However, its records do not show the outcome of the visit. Therefore, it is unclear whether a repair was carried out appropriately.
On 14 June 2023 the resident raised concerns that the front door buzzer was not working again. Although the landlord told the resident that it had raised an order, there is no evidence to corroborate this in its records. It was only when the resident raised his concerns again a few days later that it then raised an order. The records do not show when the repairs were completed. This is a record keeping failure.
On 21 August 2023 the resident reported that the door was unsecure. He raised concerns that people could enter the building. He said that this was a concern, given that rough sleepers were causing a nuisance in the communal areas. The landlord responded a few days later and explained that it had raised another order to repair the door. The landlord’s records show that it carried out a temporary repair on 24 August 2023.
The resident raised concerns that the door repair had not been resolved on 1 September 2023 which meant the door was unsecure. He reiterated that rough sleepers were entering the building and causing a nuisance. He continued to report the issues a further 3 times over the following weeks. It was not until around 15 September that the landlord raised an order. This was approximately 14 days after the resident’s report. While the reason for the delay is unclear, it was unreasonable. Particularly because of the ongoing issues with rough sleepers entering the building and causing a nuisance. The records show that a temporary repair was made on 15 September, and it noted that the closer arm needed to be replaced. The landlord completed this on 18 October 2023.
The landlord’s repair logs indicate that it had raised approximately 20 orders to repair the communal front door between January and October 2023. The orders mainly consisted of three issues; unsecure door, issue with the fobs which meant residents were unable to enter the building and the intercom not working. The number of the orders in this time period suggest that there may have been an overarching cause that connected the ongoing issues with the door. Therefore, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have carried out a meaningful investigation into the matter. This may have provided it with an understanding of what was the root cause of the issues and helped it to find a reasonable long-term resolution. This may have reasonably mitigated the resident’s future incurred time, trouble, and distress.
In his October 2023 complaint, the resident told the landlord that rough sleepers were knocking his door at night. He had previously raised several concerns that the door was unsecure which meant rough sleepers were entering the building and causing a nuisance. In the circumstances, it would have been for the landlord to have addressed the resident’s concerns. Its failure to do so meant that it missed the opportunity to investigate the resident’s concerns further and to understand how he had been impacted by the repairs.
The resident escalated his complaint. He raised concerns that rough sleepers were still entering the building. He reported that the door was unsecure again on 3 January 2024. The landlord attended the same day and reported that the door closure was not working and repaired it. A further report was made on 3 February 2023. This was also repaired on the same day. It is also noted that the landlord visited the resident on 28 February 2024. While the door was secure at this time, the problem with rough sleepers persisted.
In its March 2024 stage 2 response the landlord explained that the most recent report showed that the door had been damaged. It said that the report supported the resident’s concerns that people were forcing the door. It explained that it was working with the police to increase its patrols in the area. While we do not doubt the landlord’s comment, we do not have evidence of its partnership work with the police on this matter. Therefore, it is unclear when the work began and whether its partnership with the police was proactive and timely.
The resident had reported issues with the communal front door on several occasions over approximately a 10-month period. This included times where the door was left unsecure for undue periods of time. He made it clear during that period that rough sleepers were damaging the door, as well as entering and causing a nuisance. While the landlord attended and made reasonable repairs, it missed opportunities to meaningfully investigate the root causes of the problem. While it is unclear, the evidence suggests that it may not have been until around its March 2024 stage 2 response that it took such action. This meant that over approximately a 10-month period, the resident incurred time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience. This included not only repeatedly reporting repairs but also dealing with the nuisance caused by the rough sleepers entering the building. This may have been reasonably avoided, if the landlord had taken timely steps to meaningfully investigate the matter sooner.
Therefore, while the landlord’s offer of compensation of £100 for the stress and inconvenience caused went some way to put matters right, it did not go far enough. Given the inconvenience experienced by the resident, a further £150 compensation has been ordered.
Overall, the landlord failed to at times raise orders in a timely manner and demonstrate that it had repaired the door within its own policy timescales. It also missed opportunities to investigate the root cause of the ongoing issues with the communal front door.
Therefore, we have found that there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reported concerns about the communal front door.
It is noted that shortly after the landlord issued its stage 2 response, it told the resident that it had hired an engineer to carry out a “thorough” inspection of the door system. It said that this was because its repairs over the years had been “ineffective”. It also said that it would apply for an injunction in relation to the “trespassers”. This was positive and demonstrated that the landlord continued to take steps to resolve the issue. The evidence provided shows that the landlord was granted an injunction against the “trespassers”. However, we do not have evidence of the outcome of the door system inspection. It is also noted that the resident has recently told this Service that rough sleepers are still entering the building. Therefore, we have made an order for the landlord to update the resident and this Service on the outcome of the inspection and what steps it is taking to ensure the door is secure.

Communal carpets

The evidence available suggests that the resident first raised concerns that there was human waste in the communal areas on 28 July 2024. He expressed that it was “unbearable”. He said that the property was “unhealthy and unsafe.” There is no evidence that the landlord investigated the resident’s report. This was inappropriate. The resident also asked the landlord whether the carpets would be replaced in August 2023. There is no evidence that the landlord responded.
The resident reiterated his concerns that the communal area was “unhealthy” in his October 2023 complaint. In response, the landlord explained that it was going to inspect the condition of the communal area at the end of November 2023. This was appropriate. However, we do not have a contemporaneous record of the outcome of the inspection. The landlord has therefore failed to demonstrate that it followed through with its commitment to reasonably investigate the resident’s concerns.
The resident advised that his concerns remained when he escalated his complaint. However, the landlord failed to address and acknowledge this in its response. The reason that it did not is unclear. It had previously told the resident that it would inspect the communal areas. Therefore, given that the resident had raised his concerns again, it would have been reasonable for it to have updated him on the matter. That it did not meant that the resident’s concerns remained unanswered. We have therefore found maladministration in respect of this complaint.

Resident’s request to be made a priority on the landlord’s housing list

We do not have the landlord’s lettings policy or equivalent. In the absence of such information, we have assessed the landlord’s actions on the basis of reasonableness.
Between May and September 2023, the resident requested to be placed on the landlord’s priority housing list. He chased his request approximately 9 times during this period. The evidence available demonstrates that the landlord did not respond to any of the resident’s correspondence. The reason that it did not is unclear. However, its lack of response over a 5-month period is concerning and inappropriate. It caused the resident time, trouble, and distress. It is understandable that the resident felt that the landlord had ignored him.
In his October 2023 complaint, the resident said that the landlord had not responded to his requests to be moved up the priority list. In response the landlord explained that the resident’s banding would need to be reassessed by its lettings panel. It asked the resident to provide supporting evidence for the assessment. While significantly delayed, the response was appropriate. It provided the resident with sufficient information which included what steps he needed to take in order for his banding to be reassessed. However, its delayed response meant that the resident was unable to progress his banding reassessment for approximately 6 months. This caused him distress and inconvenience.
It is unclear whether the resident took any action once in receipt of the landlord’s guidance. However, he asked the landlord for an update in December 2023, and it failed to reply. This was unreasonable. The resident chased the matter in February 2024. It is unclear whether the landlord responded.
In its stage 2 response the landlord explained that it had received the resident’s medical evidence. However, it still needed the resident’s statement and reasons for his appeal. It asked the resident to provide the information before the next panel hearing. It is unclear whether the landlord’s advice was in accordance with any internal policies or guidance, however it was reasonable to ask the resident to provide evidence to support his appeal.
While the landlord’s actions with regards to informing the resident about the necessary steps appear reasonable, its responses to the resident were significantly delayed. It is evident that the failure to respond was the cause of distress and inconvenience to the resident. We have therefore found that there was service failure in respect of this complaint.

Complaint Handling

On 23 October 2023 the resident made a formal complaint. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 3 November 2023. This was approximately 9 working days after the initial complaint. Our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) states that landlords should acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. The reason for the delayed acknowledgement is unclear, but this was not Code compliant. However, it is noted that the landlord’s stage 1 response was sent in a timely manner and well within the relevant timescales. Therefore, the delayed acknowledgement was not of significant impact.
The resident escalated his complaint on 16 November 2023. The landlord’s complaint policy states that it would acknowledge review requests within 2 working days. It was not until 7 February 2024 that the landlord acknowledged and logged the resident’s escalated complaint. This was approximately 3 months after the resident’s initial request. The landlord told the resident that his emails about his complaint went into its “junk email” and it was therefore unaware of the correspondence. This may have been the case. However, the evidence provided shows that it recorded the resident’s escalated complaint on the day that he had sent it. Therefore, while the reason it did not escalate his complaint at that time is unclear, that it did not was unreasonable and a failing. The landlord’s delay meant that the resident did not receive a response to his escalated complaint for a prolonged period of time. This caused him distress and inconvenience.
The landlord’s policy states that it would issue stage 2 responses within 20 working days. In this case, it issued its stage 2 response on 12 March 2023. This was approximately 4 days after its own policy timescales. There is no evidence that it informed the resident that its response would be delayed. This would have caused him further distress and inconvenience. It offered the resident £50 for this failure, which was reasonable and proportionate. However, it is noted that the landlord’s delay to acknowledge the resident’s complaint in a timely manner meant that its overall handling of the stage 2 complaint was delayed.
In his escalated complaint, the resident raised a number of concerns. These included:
1. Compensation for failures covering the previous 7 years.
2. Compensation for the impact on his mental health.
3. A refund of service charges paid over 7 years for the bins, security, and lift.
While the landlord addressed the service charges for the lifts, it did not respond to the other elements of the resident’s request. The Code states that landlords should address all aspects of the resident’s complaint. It is noted that the landlord may not have reasonably granted the resident’s requests. However, that it did not provide him with its response was unreasonable. Therefore, an order has been made for the landlord to address these concerns if it has not already done so.
Overall, the landlord failed to:
1. acknowledge the resident’s complaints within the Code’s timescales. In particular his escalated complaint.
2. issue its stage 2 complaint within its own policy timescales.
3. respond to the resident’s specific concerns in his escalated complaint.

Therefore, we have found maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

The landlord’s communication with the resident

It is evident that the landlord failed to appropriately respond to the resident’s substantive issues throughout this case. This has been highlighted in the previous assessments. In several incidences it did not respond to his repeated concerns and requests for approximately 6 months. This included his concerns around the lift breakdowns, the smell of the bins and his request to be placed on its housing priority list. During those periods the resident also raised concerns that the landlord was not responding to him. The landlord failed to respond to that concern. In relation to other issues, such as the communal front door, the landlord’s responses were intermittent and at times a month or two would pass without it responding to the resident.
The reason it did not respond is unclear. However, that it did not is concerning and inappropriate. In particular when it failed to respond to the resident’s concerns about the security and health and safety of his building. The landlord’s lack of response caused the resident time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience over a prolonged period of time. It is understandable that he felt that the landlord was ignoring him and subsequently raised a complaint about the matter. It was only then did the landlord respond to his concerns and requests.
In its stage 1 response, as part of putting matters right, the landlord told the resident that it would provide him with weekly updates on his concerns and requests. This was appropriate. However, it has not provided any evidence to suggest that it did so. There is also evidence that its lack of communication continued after it issued its response. For example, the resident asked for an update on his housing banding in December 2023 and February 2024. He also reported that the communal front door was unsecure in January and February 2024. There is no evidence that the landlord replied. This suggests that it failed to learn from the resident’s complaint and its previous communication failures. It also suggests that it did not follow through with its own commitment that it would provide the resident with weekly updates. In not doing so meant that it mismanaged the resident’s expectations that itself set. That was unreasonable.
Overall, the landlord:
1. failed to respond to several of the resident’s substantive issues for approximately 5-6 months and only responded when he made a complaint.
2. responded intermittently to other issues.
3. failed to demonstrate that it followed through with its stage 1 response commitment to update the resident weekly.
4. continued to fail to respond to the resident after it issued its stage 1 response.
In its stage 2 response the landlord acknowledged that it failed to respond to the resident’s correspondence about the substantive issues appropriately. It offered the resident £500 compensation. This went some way to put matters right. However, it is unclear what time period the compensation covered. It did not acknowledge that it failed to follow through with its stage 1 commitment to update the resident on a weekly basis. As well as its continuous failure to respond to the resident after it had issued its stage 1 response. These were additional communication failures which caused the resident further distress and inconvenience, and the Ombudsman considers that its £500 compensation did not sufficiently provide redress for these failures. Therefore, we have found service failure by the landlord’s communication and further compensation has been ordered.

Record keeping

There have been several instances in this case where the landlord has not provided contemporaneous records to demonstrate that it had taken reasonable steps to resolve the resident’s concerns and complaints.
It is unclear whether the landlord does not have this information, if no record was kept, or if the landlord simply failed to provide it for the purposes of this investigation. Regardless, this is a record keeping failing.
The evidence also shows that at times its repair logs were not fully completed. This included missing information around the dates the communal doors repairs were completed.
The landlord should ensure that it maintains a clear and accurate audit trail of all actions taken in any case. Not only do such records assist the landlord in reviewing its own service provision, but they are also imperative in the event of an independent investigation conducted by organisations such as the Ombudsman.
We encourage landlords to self-assess against the Ombudsman’s Spotlight reports following publication. In May 2023 we published our Spotlight on knowledge and information management. The evidence gathered during this investigation shows the landlord’s practice was not in line with that recommended in the Spotlight report. We encourage the landlord to consider the findings and recommendations of our Spotlight report unless the landlord can provide evidence it has self-assessed already.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reported concerns about the frequency of the lift breakdowns.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reported concerns about the smell and overflow of the communal bins.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reported repairs about the communal front door.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the communal carpet.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to be moved up its housing priority list.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord’s complaint handling.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord’s communication with the resident.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord’s record keeping.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord should:
1. apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this case, in line with the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance.
2. pay the resident £750 compensation, which is comprised of:
  1. £150 in recognition of distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about the ongoing smell of the bins.
  2. £150 in recognition of distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the communal front door repairs.
  3. £150 in recognition of distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s concerns about the condition of the communal carpets.
  4. £100 in recognition of distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s request to be moved up on the housing list.
  5. £100 in recognition of distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s complaint handling.
  6. £100 in recognition of distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s lack of communication.
3. pay the resident the compensation that it offered in its stage 2 response if it has not done so already.
4. contact the resident to discuss any outstanding concerns that he may have in relation to his complaints highlighted in this report. Including, but not limited to:
  1. the outcome of the door inspection and what steps it is taking to ensure the door is secure.
  2. the replacement of the communal carpet.
  3. an update of his request for his banding to be increased, if not already done so.
  4. his request for compensation for his mental health concerns and a refund of the charges over the previous 7 years.

Recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord review its position on the lift breakdowns and provide the resident and this Service with its next steps to resolve the issue.