Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

Notting Hill Genesis (201911186)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201911186

Notting Hill Genesis

11 February 2021


Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
    1. repairs to the resident’s windows and doors;
    2. complaints about intermittent hot water at the property;
    3. the associated formal complaint.

Background and summary of events

  1. In October 2018 the resident reported draughts coming from the windows and the rear door at the property. The landlord responded to the request for a repair and a temporary repair was completed in April 2019.
  2. The resident then contacted the landlord on 22 November 2019 to report intermittent hot water from her shower and to request a repair. The landlord visited on 11 December 2019, when the resident also reported damp in the property, draughts from the windows and back door and a stiff front door. The landlord confirmed that repairs jobs would be raised to address these issues.
  3. The resident reported a leak from her roof on 19 December 2019 and a surveyor attended on 23 December 2019. The surveyor’s report concluded that the windows and doors were in good condition but noted that some windows were not closing properly. The surveyor recommended that tenants and occupants would need to control the level of moisture and air the rooms regularly. However he also recommended that the draught excluder to the back door should be refixed, that a repairs inspection should check all gasket seals on the window frames, and that all defective friction hinges on windows should be replaced or refixed.
  4. The resident raised a formal complaint on 6 January 2020, stating that repairs to follow-up the temporary fixes from complaints raised in 2018 had not been completed and she was still experiencing draughts from the windows. She also noted that the repairs request relating to intermittent hot water raised on 22 November 2019 had not been dealt with, nor had the repairs request to the roof made on 19 December 2019.  She asked for these repairs to be addressed and also raised a complaint about the behaviour of staff from the landlord’s customer service centre.
  5. In the landlord’s Stage 1 response of 15 January 2020, it noted that the resident was visited on 11 December 2019 to identify the required repairs and a surveyor had subsequently visited. It noted the surveyor’s conclusions and identified that an appointment had been made for repairs to the rear door to take place on 21 January 2020 and its records showed this work as completed on that date. It stated that a contractor had attended on 14 January 2020 but had been unable to gain access to carry out repairs to the window hinges. It also acknowledged the resident’s complaint about the behaviour of customer service staff and apologised if a staff member had hung up on the resident. Finally, it said it believed that the hot water issue had been resolved.  
  6. The resident responded on 29 January 2020, requesting escalation of the complaint as the Stage 1 response had not addressed all issues. She disputed that the hot water issue had been resolved and said that, whilst repairs had been raised in relation to gaps in the windows, these had not been completed. Further, the roof repairs request had still not been responded to. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s request the same day and confirmed that the complaint had been escalated to Stage 2.
  7. In the absence of a substantive response from the landlord, the resident chased this up on 5 March 2020. She noted that the complaint about intermittent hot water, which had been reported three months previously, had still not been resolved. The landlord responded the same day to confirm that an appointment for the hot water issue had been booked for 17 March 2020.
  8. On 9 March 2020 the landlord confirmed that the complaint had been escalated to Stage 2 and apologised for the delay in carrying out the review. It again confirmed that a bathroom repairs appointment had been booked for Tuesday 17 March 2020. The resident acknowledged this but noted that a repairs visit to address the window draughts was still pending.
  9. On 20 March 2020 the resident contacted the landlord to report a missed appointment the previous day. The landlord apologised for this and confirmed that a new appointment would be booked.
  10. The resident contacted the landlord on 23 March 2020 and notified that the engineer who had attended the property that day had installed new taps but this had not resolved the hot water problem. She said his conclusion was that there was an issue with the immersion heater and the pressure. In the landlord’s response the following day it confirmed that a repairs request had been raised for a plumber to attend.
  11. In the landlord’s Stage 2 response of 22 April 2020, it confirmed its position as follows:
    1. Several repairs had been carried out to address the problem of a draught to windows and doors but further works were due;
    2. Consideration had been given to whether replacement windows were required but its surveyor had concluded that the windows were intact and did not require replacement. Further works had been scheduled for 17 March 2020 but, due to Covid-19, non-emergency works were on hold. The resident would be advised when works would be completed and once this was carried out a fresh survey would be conducted to assess whether any further work was required;
    3. The repair to the shower reported on 22 November 2019 was not completed until 24 March 2020 when a replacement valve was fitted. It acknowledged that the wrong tradesman had been sent out initially and apologised for the failure to complete the repair in accordance with its timescales;
    4. The Stage 1 response failed to address the complaint about the roof repair. It confirmed that a works order had been issued to address this and the resident would be notified of when the work would be completed;
    5. Given the failures identified in completing repairs, it partially upheld the complaint and offered a goodwill gesture of £150 (£100 for the distress caused by the time taken to complete repairs and £50 for the time taken to complete the review of the complaint). The resident was asked to confirm if this goodwill payment was acceptable as a resolution to the complaint.
  12. The resident contacted the landlord on 22 April 2020 to express dissatisfaction with its complaint response. She said that a recent repair to the garden door to prevent draughts had failed and the draught was now re-entering the property. She therefore asked for this repair to be addressed. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s dissatisfaction with the Stage 2 response on 23 April 2020 and confirmed that, once the Covid-19 lockdown was lifted, repairs to the window and rear door would be completed.
  13. On 26 April 2020 the resident contacted the landlord to report noise and vibration from the water tank and requested a repairs visit to assess this. She followed this up on 3 May 2019 to advise that the noise had reduced and that, given the reduced repairs service on offer, there was no need for a repairs visit until the normal repairs service was restored. She requested confirmation of when this would be.
  14. On 4 May 2020 the landlord confirmed that a plumber appointment booked for the following day would go ahead. It advised that a full repairs service would not be in place until after the lockdown was lifted but confirmed that repairs could still be reported and residents would be notified of when the full repairs service would be restored.
  15. The resident contacted the Ombudsman on 25 June 2020 advising that a temporary repair had been carried out to the rear door but the issues with the windows had still not been resolved as two windows were due to be replaced but she maintained that there were problems with all the windows. The landlord’s records show that a repair to the windows raised on 25 June 2020 was completed on 4 August 2020.

Policies and procedures

  1. The landlord’s repairs policy classifies repairs as emergency repairs and routine repairs.
    1. Emergency Repairs are those where there is an immediate danger to a person’s safety, major damage to the property, flooding, major electrical fault, loss of heating (during October to March only) or hot water failure, or the property is not secure. They should be attended to within four hours, all major services should be restored within 24 hours, and any further work should be completed within 24 hours;
    2. Routine Repairs are classed as non-urgent work needed to rectify or prevent damage to and ensure the proper working order of the property and its fixtures. They should be completed within 20 working days.
  2. The landlord operates a two stage complaints process.
    1. At Stage 1 the formal complaint investigation will result in a written response within 10 working days;
    2. Residents unhappy with the Stage 1 response should identify why they are dissatisfied within 20 working days from receipt of the response and can request an escalation to Stage 2 of the complaints process;
    3. Stage 2 of the complaints process consists of review by an independent manager or an independent resident reviewer. The response should be provided within 20 working days. 
  3. The landlord’s compensation policy states that:
    1. compensation can be paid where it has failed to follow its published policies or there have been unreasonable delays against its service standards. Examples of areas where compensation may be paid include (but are not limited to): right to repair; failure to provide services; loss of heating or hot water; loss of room or facility;
    2. where a contractor fails to attend an appointment arranged by the landlord, a resident may be entitled to £30 compensation;
    3. if a qualifying repair within the resident’s property is not carried out satisfactorily within the relevant target completion time compensation to a maximum of £50 may be paid;
    4. goodwill payments may be made to acknowledge that there has been a service failure. These will not exceed £50;
    5. compensation payments may be made where a resident has experienced distress or inconvenience following a service failure. Payments of up to £250 can be made to include cases of inconvenience, hardship, distress or a ‘making good’ payment. Cases in this category may also involve significant time and delay to resolve the issue.

Assessment and findings

Repairs to Windows and Doors

  1. In accordance with the terms of the tenancy agreement and the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 the landlord is responsible for the repair and maintenance of the structure of the property, including walls and windows. Therefore, it was necessary for the landlord to investigate the resident’s reports of damp and draughts at the property and to take appropriate steps to resolve any issues it identified.
  2. The landlord took appropriate steps to investigate the resident’s concerns and identified that repairs could be carried out to address the reported issues. However, the repairs were not completed in accordance with its repairs policy which states that non-urgent repairs should be completed within 20 working days (see paragraph 17(b) above). After a long period between the temporary repair in 2018 and the reporting of further draughts in December 2019, repairs were still pending in April 2020 at the time of the Stage 2 response and were not completed until August 2020.
  3. This investigation has not considered events dating back to October 2018, as there was a long break in correspondence from the resident until December 2019, and the formal complaint was not made until January 2020. However, the historic context to the complaint indicates that these have been longstanding issues, which the landlord was aware of, and this would have been understandably frustrating for the resident. Despite this, the repair then took eight months to complete (from December 2019 to August 2020) which exacerbated her existing concerns. It is accepted that the Covid-19 pandemic, and the associated government restrictions, materially contributed to the delays, but the evidence demonstrates that the landlord could have done more, even in these circumstances, to more effectively manage the repair and its contact with the resident.
  4. It is clear that the parties disagree about the need to replace all the windows. The landlord’s surveyor visited the property and concluded that the draught issues could be resolved via repair and did not conclude that replacement was required. While the resident disagrees with the landlord’s judgment, she has not provided any evidence to demonstrate that repairs would not resolve the identified issues. Further, the landlord is entitled to rely on the expert opinion of its suitably qualified professionals when responding to repairs request and any associated complaint. As a result, it was reasonable for the landlord to proceed on the basis that the windows should be repaired rather than replaced. This does not prevent the resident from raising further complaints should repairs fail to address the draught issues in the future.
  5. There were evidently delays and failures in communication with the resident in respect of the repairs. The correspondence shows that she was required to contact the landlord several times concerning timescales for the repairs.  Covid-19 related reductions in repairs staff availability were cited at some points during the process but, overall, there was a lack of clarity and a failure to keep the resident informed of any likely timescales for carrying out the work in addition to the overall period of delay. This caused the resident anxiety and inconvenience, which it was appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge and address in its complaint response. The adequacy of the redress offered by the landlord in that regard, is considered in the Redress section below.

Intermittent Hot Water Issues

  1. In accordance with the terms of the tenancy agreement and the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 the landlord is responsible for the repair and maintenance of the installations in the property for heating and hot water. As a result, it was necessary for the landlord to investigate the resident’s reports of a lack of hot water and to take appropriate steps to resolve any issues it identified.
  2. As above, the evidence demonstrates that there were also delays in the landlord responding to these reports. It acknowledged that its initial response failed to send the correct contractor to deal with the report which caused delay in dealing with the issue and impacted upon the timely completion of the repair. There were also failings in the landlord’s communication over the hot water issues, as there was a missed appointment and a dispute over whether staff had attended the property and been unable to gain access. In addition, the resident was required to pursue the matter with the landlord over the course of several months in order to obtain clear information about when the repair would be completed.
  3. The repair required several visits to complete and this materially contributed to the fact that the repairs were not completed in accordance with the repairs policy. That document states that non-urgent repairs should be completed within 20 working days (see paragraph 17(b) above) but, in this case, the repair was reported on 22 November 2019 and completed on 24 March 2020, some four months later.
  4. Again, the landlord’s routine repairs service was understandably impacted by the government restrictions relating to Covid-19 and the Ombudsman accepts that this would have extended the repair timeframes. However, the matters which were within the landlord’s control (such as managing the resident’s expectations, adhering to scheduled appointments, and responding to the resident’s correspondence) could have been handled better and this was not adequately addressed through the complaints process.

Complaints handling

  1. There were failures in the handling of the resident’s complaint. The landlord’s Stage 1 response failed to address all of the complaint issues and indicated that the hot water repair had been completed when it had not. It also failed to provide clarity over any action that would be taken regarding outstanding works and the timescales for completing these works.
  2. There was then a significant delay in providing the Stage 2 response, after the landlord acknowledged the escalation request on 29 January 2020. Ultimately, the Stage 2 response was not issued until 22 April 2020 well outside the 20–working day timeframe provided for in the landlord’s policy (see paragraph 18(c) above). 
  3. The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles indicate that landlords’ complaints handling procedures should be user focused and demonstrate that their purpose is to resolve disputes and restore the residents’ position in the event of anything going wrong. The landlord has partially upheld the overall complaint, apologised to the resident and offered a goodwill payment. However, while the Stage 2 response acknowledged the failures of the Stage 1 response and the delay in providing the Stage 2 response it still lacked clarity on the process and timescales for completing the outstanding repairs. As a result, the resident was left with uncertainty over when the issues would be resolved.  

Redress for identified failings

  1. The resident has expressed dissatisfaction with the compensation offered as a resolution to the complaint. The Ombudsman considers that financial redress may be appropriate where there have been instances of service failure resulting in some impact on a resident. This Service’s awards of compensation are not intended to be punitive and do not offer damages in the way that a court might. In assessing an appropriate level of compensation, we take into account a range of factors including and particular distress caused by the issues, the amount of time and effort expended on pursuing the matter with the landlord and the level of detriment caused by the landlord’s actions.
  2. The landlord has offered a good will payment of £100 for the distress caused to the resident by the delays in completing repairs. However, having reviewed the landlord’s compensation policy, this Service finds that the landlord’s offer was not commensurate with the amounts detailed therein, for circumstances similar to those experienced by the resident (see paragraph 19 above). As a result, the landlord has not sufficiently demonstrated that it was mindful of the terms of its policy, or that it has offered proportionate redress to the resident for the distress and inconvenience caused to her. Therefore, an Order for an increased level of compensation is made below to reflect the landlord’s: failure to complete the repairs in accordance with its policy timescales, the missed appointment, and the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident as a result of the delays.
  3. The landlord’s response to the formal complaint responses did not adequately identify or address the failings in its handling of the complaint itself (as detailed above). Further, the offer of £50 compensation made in April 2020 did not go far enough to proportionately redress the impact of these failings. As a result, an increased compensation award is ordered below, in that regard.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of:
    1. repairs requests to the windows and doors;
    2. complaints about intermittent hot water at the property;
    3. the associated formal complaint

 

Orders

  1. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to:
    1. pay the resident £250 compensation (£75 for the delay in carrying out the required repairs to the windows and doors; £75 for the delay in resolving the intermittent hot water issues; and £100 for the poor handling of the formal complaint). Any amount of compensation already paid to the resident in respect of this complaint may be deducted from this sum;
    2. complete the necessary roof repairs, if it has not already done so.

Recommendations

  1. The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord should, if it has not already done so, provide the resident with information on any action it has taken in respect of training staff from its customer care centre and improving staff communications with residents.