Notting Hill Genesis (NHG) (202340097)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202340097

Notting Hill Genesis (NHG)

27 November 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 response to the resident’s:
1. reports of poor maintenance of the communal CCTV system.
2. request to inspect service charge invoices related to the communal CCTV system.
3. reports of faulty windows causing damp and mould.
4. reports of a faulty intercom door entry system and security gate.
5. associated complaint.

Background

The resident is a shared ownership leaseholder of a 2 bedroom property within a building that accommodates several other flats, for which the landlord is the freeholder. He has told this service that he has a young child living in the property and that the landlord is aware of this.
The resident’s building is located within a courtyard accessible through a security gate. The building is equipped with an intercom door entry system, which controls access to the main communal door leading to the individual flats.
On 29 September 2020, leaseholders of the building reported to the landlord that the communal CCTV was not functioning. The leaseholders followed up with an additional email on 17 November 2020, highlighting that the issue had not been resolved, despite their payment of service charges for the system. On 10 December 2020, the landlord sent an email to the local MP, stating that it was unaware of any issues with the building’s CCTV system prior to 13 November 2020. The landlord’s email also confirmed that the building’s CCTV had been restored and assured regular maintenance of the system going forward.
On 18 February 2023, the landlord sent a mass email to all leaseholders of the building. It said that it intended to carry out work to the building’s windows, in response to reports of water ingress seeping through the window seals of several properties. On 3 March 2023, the resident emailed the landlord, objecting to any window repairs proceeding without prior inspection of his property. He reported that mould was forming around his windows and ceiling, and that previous work conducted by the landlord had damaged his window frames. The landlord responded to the resident’s email on 9 March 2023, explaining that its surveyor had already inspected the windows of neighbouring properties and developed a scope of works based on their findings.
On the same day, the resident raised a complaint with the landlord. He questioned why a surveyor had not been sent to inspect his property, particularly as he had previously reported issues with his windows.
On 4 April 2023, the landlord instructed its surveyor to inspect the resident’s property. The surveyor confirmed the presence of mould around the windows in both bedrooms within the property. The surveyor’s report explained that the mould was caused by condensation due to the resident drying clothes in the property, and recommended cleaning the affected areas with an antifungal solution. The report also indicated that any instances of water penetration through the resident’s windows, may have been due to the absence of a guttering pipe on the building. However, the inspection found no evidence of damage to the resident’s windows or seals. The surveyor advised that scaffolding would be necessary to assess repairs for all other windows in the building.
On 31 May 2023, the resident raised a complaint with the landlord, expressing dissatisfaction with the findings from the surveyor’s inspection. He also requested an independent surveyor to conduct an inspection of his property.
The landlord sent an email to the resident on 19 July 2023, inviting the resident, along with any other interested leaseholders, to meet in person to discuss all their concerns in greater detail. It also advised that a specialist window contractor had been engaged to survey all the windows in the building for repairs. On 30 October 2023, the window contractor submitted its inspection report to the landlord. Regarding the resident’s property, the report identified several issues. In one of the bedrooms, the window did not have a trickle vent, a handle was loose, and the seals within the window unit had blown. In the second bedroom, there was another loose handle, and the restrictor hinge was faulty.
Between 28 December 2023 and 5 January 2024, several residents of the building reported to the landlord that the security pedestrian gate to the street, was not functioning and had been operating intermittently. Consequently, residents were forced to climb over a fence to gain access to the building. Additionally, residents reported that the building’s intercom door entry system was not functioning, as they were unable to release the main communal door from within their individual properties. On 5 January 2024, a contractor attended the building and installed a new release button on the security pedestrian gate.
On the same day, the resident raised a complaint with the landlord, stating that it had failed to undertake and complete the necessary work on the building’s windows, despite receiving an inspection report from a specialist window contractor the previous year.
Between 7 January 2024 and 16 January 2024, the landlord engaged the same specialist window contractor to survey the building’s windows for replacement. It also instructed a contractor to carry out an inspection of the building’s CCTV system. Additionally, it instructed a contractor to readjust the security pedestrian gate following resident reports that it was not closing fully.
On 19 January 2024, the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response to the resident. It explained that the cost of repairing the building’s windows was substantial, and as a result, it was in the process of obtaining a quote to replace all windows instead. It acknowledged shortcomings in its previous communication with the resident and committed to providing all leaseholders with updates every 2 weeks.Additionally, it apologised for any inconvenience and distress caused by its poor communication and offered £250 in compensation.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response also explained that the building’s CCTV system was in poor condition due to its age, a lack of maintenance, and adverse weather. It advised that the entire system required an upgrade and informed the resident that it was gathering quotes to present to leaseholders for consultation, who would be invited to suggest any contractors they wished to use. Additionally, the landlord explained that the issues with the building’s security pedestrian gate was due to corrosion of the previous exit button. It also acknowledged that the pedestrian gate still did not close fully, which presented a security risk. It offered the resident a 15% reduction in the service charge management fee and committed to reimbursing the costs associated with repairing the security pedestrian gate.
On 2 February 2024, the resident asked the landlord to provide documentation of the engineer responsible for reinstating the building’s CCTV in December 2020, including the date and time of the call out. Additionally, the resident asked for maintenance records for the system, as well as all related invoices, from December 2020 to the present day. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s request on the same day, clarifying that leaseholders could only review invoices within 6 months of receiving a summary of their service charges. However, it said that it would attempt to obtain information extending as far back as possible and would provide a response in approximately 30 days.
On 10 April 2024, the landlord issued a stage 2 complaint response to the resident. It apologised for the inconvenience and delay in repairing the building’s CCTV system, explaining that it initially selected one contractor but switched to another due to a long wait for parts. It offered to contribute 10% toward the cost of upgrading the system and committed to updating the resident on the timeline of works. Additionally, the landlord offered the resident £250 in compensation for failing to provide the requested documentation and invoices related to the system. On 17 April 2024, the landlord’s contractor completed installation of a new communal CCTV system.

Events after the completion of the complaints process

On 6 June 2024, the landlord’s contractor attended the building to repair the reported issues with the intercom door entry system.
The resident spoke with this service on 7 November 2024, stating that his complaint was not resolved. He said that the landlord had not provided any service records or invoices related to the maintenance of the building’s CCTV system. He reported that damp and mould around the windows in one of the bedrooms had become so severe that the room was uninhabitable. He advised that he had been experiencing issues with the intercom door entry system, up until September 2024. The resident also stated that he does not believe he should be responsible for paying service charges related to the building’s CCTV and intercom systems, given that these systems have either been intermittently operational or entirely out of service for several years.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident has told this service that over the past several years, he has submitted complaints to the landlord about poor maintenance of the building’s CCTV system, the faulty intercom door entry system, and the condition of his windows. Paragraph 42 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme) states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, were brought to the Ombudsman’s attention more than 12 months after they exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure. Therefore, in the interest of fairness, the scope of this investigation will focus solely on the events from the resident’s complaint on 31 May 2023, up to the repair of the building’s intercom door entry system on 6 June 2024. 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.
Nonetheless, we acknowledge that the resident’s concerns relate to long-standing issues, and the landlord was expected to take this into account in its responses to the resident’s complaints. References to events that occurred prior to 31 May 2023, are included in this report for context only.
Additionally, by way of remedy, the resident would like the landlord to offset service charges related to the building’s CCTV and intercom systems, due to the ongoing issues over several years. Paragraph 42 (d) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, concern the level of rent or service charge, or the amount of the rent or service charge increase. The First Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) is better suited to consider the reasonableness of, or liability, to pay service charges. The resident may wish to contact the First Tier Tribunal if he wishes to pursue this aspect of his complaint further. We would advise him to seek free and independent advice from the Leasehold Advisory Service (LEASE) in relation to how to proceed with a case, should he wish to do so.
While the Ombudsman will not consider the amount or increase of service charges, nor whether the amount charged is reasonable. The Ombudsman will consider how the landlord dealt with the resident’s request for information and its response to the concerns raised about the services provided, in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles. In this respect, the Ombudsman will consider whether a landlord has acted fairly, given all the circumstances of a case, whether it has put things right and identified service failures, and where appropriate, whether it has learnt from the outcomes of the individual complaint so as to improve its overall service delivery.

Policies and procedures

Under the terms of the resident’s lease, the landlord is responsible for the structure of the building and in particular windows, window frames, and communal areas of the building. Communal areas of the building include, entrances and door entry systems. The resident is responsible for keeping all internal parts of the property in good repair.
The resident’s lease allows the landlord to recover associated costs of repair, maintenance, and management through the resident’s service charges. Service charges relating to management fees contribute towards the cost of providing account statements, dealing with standard enquiries, and carrying out its obligations as a social landlord.
The landlord’s explanation of service charges relating to the building’s CCTV system, states that the apportioned costs “cover regular maintenance of camera equipment, to ensure the safety features are functioning correctly to prevent failures”.
The landlord’s responsive repairs policy states that repairs fall within 3 categories:
1. Emergency – these are attended to within 4 hours with a make safe or temporary repair completed within 24 hours. These repairs can include an event that threatens the safety and security of a resident such as a faulty window mechanism, where the window won’t lock or shut properly, or an external door that cannot be secured.
2. Standard – the landlord aims to complete these within 20 working days. For complex cases, a further 20 days may be required.
3. Replacement and improvement – the landlord will communicate the timeframe with residents.
The landlord’s damp and mould procedure states that an officer should visit the property within 10 days of receiving a report of damp and mould. The officer will determine if a standard or complex repair is required.
Section 20 (S20) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 requires the landlord to consult with leaseholders before it undertakes any work which will cost any leaseholder more than £250, including repairs to the building and estate.
Section 22 (S22) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, gives leaseholders the right to inspect documents relating to their service charges within a period of 6 months from receipt of the summary of charges. Once a request has been submitted, the landlord is required to make the documents available for inspection within a reasonable time, which is generally within 30 days.
The landlord’s compensation policy allows for financial payments of redress where service failure has been determined. It will make awards of up to £500 where its failure has caused a significant level of distress and inconvenience to the resident. The policy also states that where there is a loss of communal services already charged but is not incurred or is deemed an unreasonable cost, this will be reflected in the year end accounts as appropriate.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of poor maintenance of the communal CCTV system

As part of this investigation, we asked the landlord for detailed records relating to reported issues with the building’s CCTV system and evidence of the actions taken in response. Very little of this has been provided, and if this information does exist, the landlord’s records appear to be incomplete. For example, the landlord issued a stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 19 January 2024, addressing issues related to the CCTV system. However, we have seen no evidence of the resident’s formal complaint, or of the events preceding it. The landlord’s poor record-keeping has led the Ombudsman to question the integrity of its records and whether they can be relied on.
The importance of clear record-keeping and management cannot be over emphasised, given the impact it has on a landlord’s effective overall service provision. This service’s knowledge and information spotlight report, explains how a landlord’s services can be held back by weaknesses in data and information, which can turn ordinary service requests into an extraordinarily protracted complaint. Such shortcomings damage the landlord’s reputation and erodes trust with its residents. The gaps in the landlord’s record-keeping, as highlighted throughout this report, demonstrate the need for improvement.
From the evidence available, on 7 January 2024, the landlord’s contractor informed the landlord that the building’s CCTV system was in poor condition and required an upgrade. The landlord would be expected to keep leaseholders informed of any planned works in communal areas, to maintain transparency and build a positive landlord-leaseholder relationship. Therefore, it was appropriate for the landlord to share the contractor’s findings with the resident in its stage 1 complaint response. Additionally, the landlord appropriately stated that it would gather quotes so that leaseholders could recommend any preferred contractors for the job.
The landlord’s records indicate that between 15 January 2024 and 10 April 2024, it appropriately obtained multiple quotes for replacing the building’s CCTV system, including a quote submitted by a leaseholder. However, during this period the landlord failed to keep the resident informed on the progress of securing a contractor. Although it’s stage 2 response later explained some of the challenges in its decision-making process, the landlord should have been providing regular updates to the resident. This would have demonstrated transparency and helped manage the resident’s expectations regarding the anticipated timeline of work and any potential delays. The landlord’s lack of communication likely contributed to the resident’s frustration and may have led him to feel that his concerns were not being prioritised.
The evidence shows that the landlord’s contractor replaced the building’s CCTV system on 18 April 2024. However, there is no record of the landlord informing the resident of this installation until 3 weeks later. The Ombudsman finds this a concern given through its complaints process, the landlord committed to providing the resident with updates on the start of the work. Furthermore, correspondence between the landlord and resident suggests that the landlord only informed the resident of the completed work, after the resident followed up with an email requesting an update. The landlord’s ongoing communication issues demonstrated poor management of resident satisfaction. Communication that only occurs in response to resident enquiries, demonstrates a reactive, rather than proactive approach, and indicates inadequate responsiveness to residents’ needs.
The resident has told this service that the landlord chose to proceed with its own contractor for upgrading the building’s CCTV system, rather than using the contractor suggested by a leaseholder, whose quote may have been more affordable. It is important to clarify that, while it is best practice for a landlord to genuinely consider leaseholders’ recommendations, it is not obligated to appoint the contractor nominated by leaseholders. The landlord would be expected to select the contractor it deemed most appropriate for the work, taking into account cost-effectiveness, quality of work, reliability and the ability to meet timelines. The Ombudsman notes the landlord appropriately explained its decision to proceed with its selected contractor in its stage 2 complaint response to the resident.
The landlord acknowledged its poor maintenance of the building’s CCTV system and through its complaints process, offered to contribute towards the upgrade costs. This was a positive response, as it demonstrated accountability for its service failure and an attempt to remedy the situation. Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes.
Based on the landlord’s explanation of service charges related to the CCTV system and its compensation policy, it would be expected to adjust the resident’s service charge payment to account for the service that was not provided. Although we have seen evidence suggesting that the resident’s service charge account for the year ending 31 March 2023, did not include charges for CCTV system maintenance, there is no indication that the resident was informed of this during the landlord’s handling of his concerns. Additionally, as the system was replaced on 18 April 2024, it is unclear whether the landlord also intends to adjust the resident’s account for the year ending 31 March 2024. As such, the Ombudsman is not satisfied that the landlord has gone far enough to put things right for the resident.
Furthermore, following the conclusion of its complaints procedure, the landlord’s communication with the resident remained inadequate. This suggests that the landlord did not fully learn from the outcome of the resident’s complaint or take steps to prevent future communication issues. Given these factors and the landlord’s poor record-keeping practices, the Ombudsman has determined service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of poor maintenance of the building’s CCTV system.
The Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance, which is published on our website, sets out our service’s approach when seeking to resolve a dispute. Where there has been a determination of service failure that may have caused distress and inconvenience to the resident, the guidance states that in order to put things right, landlords should offer residents a financial remedy of £50 to £100. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord’s offer to contribute 10% towards upgrading the building’s CCTV, proportionally addresses the failings identified in this case. This offer aligns with the remedy we may have ordered, had the landlord not made an offer.
To fully put things right for the resident, the landlord should write to the resident confirming that it will adjust his service charge account for the year ending 31 March 2024, to reflect the period the building’s CCTV system was not maintained, if it has not done already.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request to inspect service charge invoices related to the CCTV system

The landlord has not provided a copy of the resident’s formal request to inspect service charge invoices related to the building’s CCTV system, further highlighting the gaps in its record-keeping. Consequently, to determine the date of the resident’s request, we have relied on an acknowledgement email from the landlord to the resident dated 2 February 2024. The Ombudsman notes that, in this email, the landlord appropriately confirmed it was considering the resident’s request under S22 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (the Act) and committed to providing a response in approximately 30 days. This was in line with the statutory timescales outlined in the Act.
Similarly, to confirm the specific documentation requested by the resident, we have relied on a follow up email the resident sent to the landlord on 19 March 2024. In this correspondence, the landlord appropriately explained that leaseholders were entitled to review invoices within 6 months of receiving a summary of their charges. It also appropriately highlighted that, as some of the information requested dated back to 2020, it could only make efforts to retrieve this data. Landlords are not legally obliged to provide documents and invoices beyond the 6 month period; however, landlords may exercise discretion in responding to such requests. Although the 30-day response time does not apply in these cases, landlords are still expected to provide the information within a reasonable timeframe.
The landlord’s records indicate that it did not meet the S22 request within the timeframe outlined in the Act, or within a reasonable period overall. While the evidence shows that between 19 March 2024 and 8 May 2024, the landlord provided the resident with monthly updates apologising for the delay, there is no record of an explanation for this extended delay. By 3 May 2024, 93 days had passed since the resident’s formal request, and the landlord continued to apologise without providing the requested information. The Ombudsman considers this delay excessive, representing a service shortcoming by the landlord. Additionally, the delay in responding likely caused inconvenience to the resident, as the evidence shows that the resident spent time repeatedly following up with the landlord for a response. That said, we acknowledge that, through its complaint process, the landlord appropriately offered the resident £250 compensation for the delay, reflecting its accountability for these failings.
In response to our enquiries, the landlord stated that it had provided the resident with invoices related to the CCTV system. However, it did not supply any evidence to substantiate this claim. We would have expected to see a copy of an email including the attached documents, along with an explanation identifying any documents that could not be provided and the reasons why. Following, a further request for evidence, the landlord submitted evidence that it emailed the requested documents to the resident on 20 November 2024. Having reviewed this email, we note that it does not include all of the information requested by the resident. Therefore, the Ombudsman is not satisfied that the landlord has adequately resolved this aspect of the resident’s complaint.
In summary, we acknowledge the landlord’s offer of compensation during the complaints process as an attempt to put things right for the resident. However, continued delays after the complaints process concluded and a lack of evidence confirming the resident’s request was fulfilled, have led the Ombudsman to determine maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request to inspect service charge invoices related to the building’s CCTV system.
We will order the landlord to provide a written response to the resident’s S22 request. This response should include a copy of the maintenance records and invoices made in the resident’s original request. The response should highlight any documents that cannot be provided and the reasons for their unavailability.
Our Remedies Guidance states that landlords should offer residents a financial remedy of £100 to £600 where there has been a failure which adversely affected the resident. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord’s offer of £250 compensation was proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation. The landlord’s offer of compensation was in line with what the Ombudsman would have ordered the landlord to pay if it had not made an offer. Therefore, the landlord should pay the resident its earlier offer of £250 compensation which it offered during its complaints process, if it has not done so already.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of faulty windows causing damp and mould

The landlord was notified of water ingress through residents’ windows in the building and appropriately informed leaseholders of its intention to undertake proposed work to resolve the issue. This action was in line with its Notice of Intention obligations under S20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. Additionally, when the resident objected to proposed works, the landlord correctly informed the resident that it would consider his comments as part of the consultation process. Landlords are not obligated to automatically halt works when they receive an objection from a leaseholder. The S20 process is structured to allow leaseholders to participate and voice their views on proposed works and associated costs, but ultimately, the landlord retains the authority to make the final decision.
The Ombudsman notes that the resident expressed frustration to the landlord regarding the fact that, despite his previous reports of issues with his windows, the landlord had not arranged for a surveyor to include his property in the inspections already conducted. While we have not been provided with records relating to the resident’s windows, prior to 3 March 2023, we would have expected the landlord to address this claim during its handling of the resident’s concerns. There is no reference to any prior reports about the resident’s windows, and the landlord should have reviewed its records to either confirm or contest that it had been made aware of previous issues. The failure to address this claim may have left the resident feeling that his concerns were not being taken seriously. Additionally, this oversight limited the landlord’s overall assessment of the resident’s windows, hindering a comprehensive understanding of the property’s history.
It was appropriate that, when the resident reported mould around the windows and ceiling on 3 March 2023, the landlord confirmed it would arrange for a surveyor to inspect his property. This would have enabled the landlord to identify any causes of damp or mould in the property, clarify responsibility for addressing these issues, and determine the necessary repairs. The Ombudsman notes that the inspection took place on 4 April 2023, which was 32 days after the resident’s report. According to the landlord’s damp and mould procedure, it was required to instruct a surveyor to inspect the resident’s property within 10 days of the report. While this delay was inappropriate, the Ombudsman acknowledges that the resident requested the appointment to coincide with other scheduled works to avoid multiple days off work. This was a reasonable request, but it likely contributed to the landlord’s inability to arrange an inspection within the 10-day timeframe.
The landlord’s records show that its communication with the resident when trying to arrange the inspection was unacceptable. The evidence shows that the resident had to follow up with the landlord multiple times, specifically on 9 March 2023, 15 March 2023, and 28 April 2023, to obtain confirmation of an appointment. The landlord’s records reflect that the property management officer (PMO) responsible for the resident’s building, indicated they were leaving their position and intended to secure an appointment before their departure. Despite this, we have seen no explanation as to why the appointment was not scheduled before their departure or handled in a timely manner. As a result, the resident expressed to the landlord that he felt emotionally, physically and mentally drained due to the landlord’s failure to appropriately address his issues.
The evidence shows that the landlord shared the findings from the surveyor’s report with the resident on 23 May 2023. This was 7 weeks after the inspection had taken place and only after the resident prompted a response. Considering that a consultation was underway to address work on the building’s windows, and that the resident had submitted a formal complaint, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have proactively reach out to discuss the surveyor’s findings. Failing to do so, likely increased the resident’s frustration and may have led him to feel that his concerns were not being prioritised.
The landlord’s records confirm that the surveyor found no damage to the resident’s windows and recommended the resident clean any mould patches with an anti-fungal solution. It was reasonable for the landlord to rely on its surveyor’s findings in this instance as landlords are entitled to rely on opinions from appropriately qualified staff and contractors concerning repairs. We note that the resident challenged the surveyor’s findings, and in response, the landlord appropriately agreed to his request for an independent survey of his property. Our spotlight report on damp and mould, which can be found on our website, emphasises that landlords should avoid attributing mould issues solely to the resident’s lifestyles, such as drying clothes indoors. The report advises landlords to take responsibility for addressing damp and mould problems and to thoroughly investigate all potential causes, including structural or maintenance issues, rather than placing blame on residents’ daily activities. Therefore, the landlord’s decision to engage an independent specialist window surveyor, demonstrated a commitment to impartiality, supporting a fair and transparent approach in addressing the resident’s concerns.
The landlord’s records indicate that the specialist window surveyor completed the building’s window survey on 30 October 2023, which was 4 months after the landlord’s instruction. The Ombudsman finds this timeframe reasonable, given the need to coordinate access to multiple individual properties within the building. However, from 30 October 2023 and 5 January 2024, there is a lack of evidence in the landlord’s records explaining why no further action was taken in response to the surveyor’s findings. The landlord later informed the resident that the delay was due to ongoing negotiations with contractors to secure a price under the £250 per leaseholder threshold. While this explanation may be valid, we have not seen any evidence of these discussions. Additionally, we would have expected to see records of regular communication with the resident, updating him and the other residents affected on the situation. Consequently, we cannot reasonably conclude that the landlord took adequate steps to meet its repair obligations in a timely manner.
The landlord’s records show that it shared the findings of the specialist window survey with the resident on 10 January 2024, which was 3 months after the survey had been completed. The Ombudsman finds this a concern, given that the findings differed significantly from the original inspection and confirmed that the resident’s windows were faulty. The landlord should have promptly contacted the resident to clarify its responsibilities and it should have outlined its intended actions to repair his windows. With confirmation that one of the resident’s windows was missing a trickle vent, the landlord was now presented with another potential contributing factor to the cause of condensation around the resident’s windows. Additionally, the Ombudsman notes that another window was reported to have had a faulty restrictor hinge and a loose handle. The landlord, in line with its obligations for emergency repairs, should have ensured that the windows were made safe within 24 hours. Especially given that there was a young child in the property. Due to these shortcomings, the resident was left in an unsafe living environment without clarity on when his windows would be repaired.
The landlord apologised for its poor communication with the resident and for the delays in repairing the building’s windows, offering the resident £250 compensation during its complaints process. It also offered to meet with the resident in person, alongside the specialist window contractor to understand the resident’s complaint better. Additionally, at the conclusion of its complaints process, it offered the resident a mould wash of his windows. This was a positive step, demonstrating the landlord’s effort to take accountability for its failings and willingness to actively engage in resolving the resident’s concerns.
However, overall, the Ombudsman is not satisfied that the landlord has adequately resolved the resident’s complaint about the windows. We acknowledge that a wider plan exists to replace and improve all windows in the building as part of efforts to address water ingress affecting multiple properties. It is generally considered reasonable to schedule large scale works such as window replacements for an entire block in advance. However, the repair of the resident’s windows should not have been delayed due to the landlord’s replacement and improvement schedule. The landlord was responsible for ensuring the windows remained functional whilst they were awaiting replacement. Additionally, the evidence shows that the landlord’s lack of attention to the resident’s prior reports, poor communication, and failure to share key findings, would have caused the resident distress, inconvenience, and unnecessary effort in seeking repair of his windows. For these reasons, the Ombudsman has determined maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of faulty windows causing damp and mould.
We will order the landlord to arrange an inspection of the resident’s property, to determine whether any temporary repairs can be undertaken to make the faulty window mechanisms safe, if this has not already been completed. The landlord should also write to the resident to clarify whether it has decided to repair or replace the building’s windows. Additionally, it should provide an update on the current status of the S20 consultation and an estimated timeline for the completion of works.
In line with our Remedies Guidance for findings of maladministration, the landlord’s offer of £250 compensation was proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation. Its offer of compensation was in line with what the Ombudsman would have ordered the landlord to pay if it had not made an offer. Therefore, the landlord should pay the resident its earlier offer of £250 compensation which it offered during its complaints process, if it has not done so already.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a faulty intercom door entry system and security gate

The landlord’s records show that it instructed a contractor to restore power to the building’s intercom door entry system on 7 June 2023 and 24 November 2023. However, without any other records indicating when the system was reported as faulty on each occasion, we are unable to assess the adequacy of the landlord’s response. Nonetheless, we will take these incidents into account in our overall assessment of the inconvenience caused to the resident by the building’s intercom door entry system’s intermittent operation.
The landlord was notified on 28 December 2023, that the security pedestrian gate was not functioning and had been operating intermittently. Given that residents reported having to climb over a fence to access or exit their properties, the landlord should have treated these reports in accordance with its emergency repairs timescales. The landlord’s records indicate that it instructed a contractor to investigate the issue on 2 January 2024, which was 5 days after the issue had been reported. This delay was inappropriate, as it did not align with the landlord’s emergency repairs response times. Additionally, the delay likely caused significant disruption and posed a potential safety risk to all residents in the building.
On 5 January 2024, 3 days after the contractor’s previous visit, residents reported the security pedestrian gate had broken down again. The evidence shows that the landlord promptly instructed a contractor to attend on the same day, resulting in the installation of a new exit button on the gate. This response was in line with the landlord’s emergency repairs timescales. However, the landlord’s records indicate that residents also reported the building’s intercom door entry system was not functioning. There is no indication in the landlord’s records that this issue was addressed during the visit, and the resident has informed us that due to the intercom system malfunction, he had to leave his property each time, going down several flights of stairs to manually open the building’s main communal door.
On 8 January 2024 and 16 January 2024, residents continued to report issues with the security pedestrian gate, specifically that it was not closing fully. Although the landlord acknowledged this issue in its stage 1 complaint response and stated it was collaborating with the contractor to determine the necessary repairs, its records show additional reports of the same issue on 30 January 2024 and 14 March 2024, indicating the residents’ security continued to be at risk.
While the landlord has informed us that the issues with the security pedestrian gate have been resolved, we have not received evidence to confirm this. Additionally, there is no documented evidence of the repair to the building’s intercom door entry system or of the landlord checking with the resident to ensure his intercom door entry system had been restored. Instead, we have had to rely on an email from a leaseholder to the landlord, confirming that the system was repaired on 6 June 2024. The Ombudsman finds this lack of documentation concerning in terms of record-keeping, as our assessments are based on the documentary evidence provided. The landlord is expected to provide sufficient evidence of its actions.
The landlord’s offer of a 15% reduction in management fee, and reimbursement for the cost of repairing the security pedestrian gate proportionally addresses the 12-month period during which residents experienced intermittent issues with the door entry system. However, due to a lack of contemporaneous evidence, the Ombudsman cannot reasonably conclude that the landlord has satisfactorily resolved the resident’s complaint. Therefore, the Ombudsman has determined maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a faulty intercom door entry system.
We will order the landlord to write to the resident confirming the date when the security pedestrian gate was readjusted and whether any further repairs are necessary. Additionally, it should review its records from the dates of repair to ensure no further complaints have been received from residents regarding these specific issues, indicating any ongoing problems that may require attention.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s associated complaint

The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints process. All complaints are to be acknowledged within 5 working days. Stage 1 complaints are responded to within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.
The landlord’s complaints procedure states that when acknowledging complaints, its complaints team will contact residents to ensure that the landlord has all of the information to do a thorough investigation.
The evidence shows that the resident emailed the landlord on 9 March 2023, expressing dissatisfaction that his property had not been included in inspections of the building’s windows. In this email the resident indicated that he had raised a formal complaint. However, the Ombudsman has found no evidence that the landlord logged or responded to this complaint. On 31 May 2023, the resident asked the landlord to raise another complaint, as he was unhappy with the findings of the surveyor inspection. Similarly, there are no records showing this complaint was logged or addressed. The landlord’s failure to record and formally respond to the resident’s complaints is unacceptable, and has led the Ombudsman to question whether its complaints procedure is being effectively implemented.
To illustrate further, the resident asked the landlord to raise a complaint on 5 January 2024, due to its failure to act on the findings of the specialist window survey. In line with its complaints procedure, a member of the landlord’s complaints team should have contacted the resident within 5 days to acknowledge his complaint. However, there are no records indicating that the complaints team fulfilled this obligation. The landlord addressed the resident’s complaint in an email exchange on 10 January 2024, followed by a formal complaint response on 19 January 2024, which largely repeated the same information. This demonstrated an unorganised investigation process, which allowed the resident to introduce new issues into his complaint before a complete response had been provided. As a result, the landlord was unable to manage the complaint effectively, and a more structured approach likely would have enabled the landlord to address the resident’s concerns comprehensively, preventing additional issues from complicating the resolution process.
We note that the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response also addressed issues concerning the building’s CCTV and intercom door entry systems. However, there is no evidence in the landlord’s records of a complaint request from the resident relating to these matters. Additionally, there are no records of a stage 2 escalation request from the resident regarding these issues, despite the landlord issuing a stage 2 response on 10 April 2024. As a result, we cannot determine whether the landlord’s complaint responses were timely or if it fully addressed the resident’s concerns. This lack of clarity in record-keeping undermines transparency and accountability, making it difficult to assess whether the landlord fulfilled its obligations under its complaints handling procedure.
The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code), available on our website, emphasises the importance of landlord’s effectively managing and responding to complaints. Good complaint handling supports strong resident-landlord relationships, and proactive resolution of complaints can prevent issues from escalating, avoiding prolonged detriment to the resident. Importantly, landlord staff should be able to identify a clear expression of dissatisfaction and, if unsure, they should contact residents to confirm how the resident wishes for their concerns to be addressed. In light of the cumulative failings identified above, the Ombudsman has determined maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s associated complaint.
Based on the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance, where there has been a determination of maladministration, which appears to have had no permanent impact on the resident, but has caused inconvenience, distress, or frustration. The guidance states that landlords should offer residents a financial remedy of £100 to £600, to put things right. In this case, the landlord should pay the resident £200 in recognition of the failures highlighted within this report, relating to its complaint handling.

The landlord’s record-keeping

The Ombudsman previously ordered the landlord to carry out a review of its policy or practice under paragraph 54 (f) of the Scheme, in relation to its knowledge and information management and its complaints handling. Some of the issues identified in this case are similar to the determined case 202126742. As the landlord has demonstrated compliance with our previous wider order, we have not made any orders or recommendations as part of this case, which would duplicate those already made to the landlord. The landlord itself should consider whether there are any additional issues arising from this later case that require further action.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its response to the resident’s reports of poor maintenance of the communal CCTV system.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s request to inspect service charge invoices related to the communal CCTV system.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s reports of faulty windows causing damp and mould.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s reports of a faulty intercom door entry system and security gate.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination the landlord must:
1. Apologise to the resident in writing for the failings identified in this investigation. The apology should be made by a senior member of staff at director level or above. The apology should be in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on apologies, available to view on our website.
2. Pay the resident the following compensation:
  1. £250 which it already offered during its complaints process, for the delay to provide the S22 documentation, if it has not done so already.
  2. £250 which it already offered during its complaints process, for the delay to repair the resident’s windows, if it has not done so already.
  3. £200 in recognition of its poor complaint handling.
3. Adjust the resident’s service charge account for the year ending 31 March 2024, to reflect the period the building’s CCTV system was not maintained, if it has not done already and write to him to confirm this.
4. Provide a written response to the resident’s S22 request. This response should include a copy of the maintenance records and invoices made in the resident’s original request. The response should highlight any documents that cannot be provided and the reasons for their unavailability.
5. Arrange an inspection of the resident’s property, to determine whether any temporary repairs can be undertaken to make the faulty window mechanisms safe, if this has not already been completed. The landlord should also write to the resident to clarify whether it has decided to repair or replace the building’s windows. Additionally, it should provide an update on the current status of the S20 consultation and an estimated timeline for the completion of works.
6. Write to the resident confirming the date the security pedestrian gate was readjusted and whether any further repairs are necessary. Additionally, it should review its records from the dates of repair to ensure no further complaints have been received from residents regarding these specific issues, indicating any ongoing problems that may require attention.
The landlord is ordered to provide evidence of compliance of the above orders to the Ombudsman within 4 weeks of the date of this decision.