Notting Hill Genesis (201914026)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201914026

Notting Hill Genesis

18 March 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
1. request for rent statements to be posted to her monthly;
2. request for a key to the communal electricity meter cupboard;
3. request for information about heating help through the government’s ‘Warm Home’ scheme;
4. request for a copy of the landlord’s complaints policy;
5. request for a post-inspection of her windows; and
6. reports of disrepair to her toilet flush.
The complaint is also about the landlord’s complaints handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident has been an assured tenant at the property of the landlord since 22 July 1985. The landlord is a registered provider of social housing.
The landlord operates a two stage complaints policy. The policy notes that landlord will provide its stage one response within 10 working days, and its stage two response within 20 working days.
The landlord operates a compensation policy. The policy notes that it can offer a ‘goodwill gesture’ payment of £50. It can also offer a ‘discretionary’ payment of up to £250 for “inconvenience.” Regarding missed appointments, the policy notes that “where it is confirmed that an appointment we arranged between you and a contractor was missed by the contractor at no fault of yours, we will compensate you £30 for a missed appointment.”
The landlord operates a responsive repairs policy. The policy notes that ‘routine repairs’ will be completed within 20 working days from the report date.
During the same time period as this complaint, the resident also raised a second complaint with the landlord regarding a missing rent payment. The second complaint was also referred to this service, however, it has since been resolved.

Summary of events

The landlord’s contractor contacted the resident on 1 November 2018 regarding a routine asbestos survey. On 2 November 2018, the resident replied to the contractor and advised that following the previous inspection, the electricity meter cupboard locks were replaced, but she was yet to receive a key. It is not evident, however, that this communication was forwarded to the landlord.
On 13 May 2019, the resident reported to the landlord that there had been eight appointments relating to the installation of double glazing at her property, and that “the number of appointments has caused me severe distress and headaches.” On 23 May 2019, the resident further reported that two other appointments to complete works to the windows had been cancelled by the landlord’s contractor.
On 13 June 2019, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s concerns regarding the installation of the windows. It apologised for the delay in its communication on the issue and enquired if the issue was still ongoing. It is not disputed that the windows had been installed, however, on 4 July 2019, the resident advised that she had understood there was to have been a final inspection on the same date, which had not occurred. It is not evident that the landlord subsequently addressed this concern.
On 17 September 2019, following a communication from the resident, the landlord confirmed it would arrange for its repairs team to contact the resident regarding relocating the handrail in her bathroom. The resident replied on 18 September 2019 that the issue was actually regarding her toilet flush. On 19 September 2019, the landlord confirmed that a repair order had subsequently been raised.
On the same date, the resident advised she had not been provided with a key to the electricity meter cupboard. The landlord replied on 23 September 2019 and apologised for having not provided the keys. It further advised its housing officer would contact the resident within two working days and provide her with a copy of the key. On 26 September 2019, however, the resident advised she was yet to receive a key from the housing officer. The landlord has provided this service with an internal email dated 1 October 2019 noting it requested the housing officer to provide a key, however, it is not evident that this subsequently occurred.
On 9 October 2019, the resident advised the issues that remained outstanding, which included that she was yet to receive the electricity meter cupboard key, and that no one had attended to inspect the windows following the installation. On 30 October 2019, the resident again requested an update on the inspection of the windows. On 31 October 2019, the landlord advised that the contractors would attend the property, and on 8 November 2019, the resident requested that any appointment be in the morning. It is not evident that an appointment was subsequently arranged.
On 15 November 2019, the landlord provided its stage one response. The landlord advised that “attempts were made to contact you by phone where the ability to leave a voice mail message was not available.” It further advised that “the contractors report … no further works are required.” It concluded that the matter was now closed and apologised for the “time this matter has taken to resolve and the failure of giving you timely updates.”
On 18 November 2019, the resident expressed her concern that the landlord had misunderstood her complaint, and on 19 November 2019, the resident advised her complaint was also about the number of appointments it had taken to complete the installation of the windows.
On 20 November 2019, the landlord provided an updated stage one response. It noted it had discussed the complaint on the telephone with the resident, and that she had requested compensation for the landlord’s contractor’s missed appointments. The landlord advised its compensation policy stated that “compensation will ‘not’ be paid where the appointment was made with the contractor,” and that it could not find any evidence of a confirmed appointment with either itself or the contractor. Regarding the post-inspection of the windows, it advised that “the windows were inspected on completion of works by a surveyor from the outside of the block and [the windows] adhered to the repair requirements.” It subsequently apologised for the resident’s time and trouble in seeking answers and offered £50 compensation.
On 14 December 2019, the resident advised she had still not received the keys to the electricity meter cupboard. The landlord replied on 16 December 2019 and advised it would contact her within two working days regarding the keys, however, it is not evident that it subsequently followed this up.
On 31 January 2020, the resident made a number of requests including:
1. that her rent statement be posted to her monthly;
2. that the landlord provide her with “information on heating help” that had been discussed during a recent home visit;
3. that there be a post-installation inspection of her windows; and
4. that the landlord provide her with a copy of its complaints policy.
On 7 February 2020, the resident noted she had not received a response from the landlord and reiterated her requests. On 12 February 2020, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s emails and enquired if there were any other concerns. On 21 February 2020, the resident reported that her toilet flush was stiff, and on 22 February 2020, she requested that her reports be dealt with by the complaints department.
On 25 February 2020, the landlord provided a response to the resident’s complaint, however, it is not evident this response was given as part of the landlord’s internal complaints procedure. It advised it would “arrange for monthly statement to be sent to you,” and that it had previously arranged for a surveyor to assess her windows, but that it would “raise this again.” It also advised it would “look into” providing the resident with a copy of its complaints policy, however, it did not comment on the keys to the electricity meter cupboard, the toilet flush, or her request for information regarding heating help. On 26 February 2020, the resident subsequently replied to request the further information regarding heating help, however, it is not evident that the landlord replied to this request.
On or around 7 March 2020, the resident had a face to face meeting with the landlord, who subsequently confirmed the outstanding issues, which included the monthly statements, the heating help advice, the keys to the electricity meter cupboard, and the inspection of the windows. On the same date, the resident advised she was also waiting on a copy of the landlord’s complaints policy, and that her toilet flush was still stiff.
On 7 April 2020, the landlord advised the resident that its system could not automatically generate monthly rent statements, but that she could “email me when you require them and I will arrange for them to be issued to you.” Regarding the keys to the electricity meter cupboard, it advised that “once the lockdown has been lifted … I will provide all the residents with a copy each [key].” Regarding the heating help advise, it advised that the paperwork following its visit was at “the office” and that it would retrieve the paperwork following lockdown and subsequently provide her with advice. It confirmed that the windows had not been inspected, but that it would chase up the surveyor to complete this “at a later date.” Regarding her toilet flush, it advised that this was “not deemed as an emergency,” and that it would be attended to after lockdown. It is not evident that this response was given as part of the landlord’s internal complaints procedure.
Following communication from this service, the landlord provided a stage two response on or around 9 June 2020. It initially apologised for the response being “substantially overdue.” Regarding the rent statements, it advised that it would “post these out to you on a monthly basis for the next few months,” but that once she could access the library again, they would be available on the internet. It reiterated the forms regarding the heating help advice were in its office, but that she could contact it, if she remembered anything in their discussion. Regarding the electricity meter cupboard, it advised this was being “fitted with a new lock” and keys would be distributed following lockdown.
Regarding the windows, the landlord advised that it “did not plan to post-inspect the interiors … but did post-inspect the exteriors.” It also advised that if she had any problems, it could get a specialist to carry out an inspection. It advised that it had sent the resident a copy of its complaints policy in April 2020 but could post a further one if required. Regarding the toilet flush, it advised that “the lavatory has been mended on the 21st April 2020.” It advised it would provide an update on the outstanding issues “on or around the 1st day of [next] month” and it offered £100 compensation for its delays. On 6 July 2020, the resident confirmed she wished to accept the compensation.
On 7 March 2021, the resident advised that her toilet was now fixed, but that she still wished for this service to investigate the landlord’s actions. The landlord subsequently provided an updated stage two response on 11 March 2021. Regarding the keys to the electricity meter cupboard, the landlord advised its records indicated it provided the keys to residents in “July/August 2020” but that if this was not the case, she should contact it. It also offered £75 compensation for the resident’s inconvenience of having to chase this issue up since “19 September 2019.” Regarding repairs to her toilet flush, it noted these had now been completed, and offered a further £75 compensation for her time and trouble in having to chase this issue.
Regarding the inspection of the windows, it reiterated that an external inspection had been completed, but conceded that it should have been clearer that an internal inspection was not necessary. It reiterated that the resident should contact it should she have any issues and offered £50 compensation for the resident’s inconvenience of having to chase this issue up since “13 May 2019.” Regarding the resident’s request for a copy of its complaints procedure, it reiterated it had provided a copy on April 2020, but offered £50 compensation for the resident’s inconvenience of having to chase this issue up since “25 November 2019.”
Regarding the rent statements, it advised there had initially been issues with its IT systems allowing it to provide them but confirmed they would now be sent monthly. It offered a further £125 compensation for her time and trouble in having to chase this issue. It also provided the resident with links to the governments “Warm Home” scheme to find out more information on what heating help was available to her. It further advised that it now had a new complaints handling system in place which should prevent any delays to its complaints handling in the future, however, it also offered £250 for its poor complaints handling to date. In total it offered an additional £625 compensation to resolve the complaint, made up of £75 in relation to the electricity meter cupboard key, £75 in relation to the repairs to the toilet flush, £50 in relation to the post-inspection of the windows, £50 in relation to the complaints policy, £125 in relation to the rent statements, and £250 in relation to the landlord’s complaints handling.

Assessment and findings

Monthly rent statements

Following issues with her rent statements, which were not considered as part of this investigation, the resident requested on 31 January 2020 that the landlord post to her the monthly rent statements. The landlord appropriately acknowledged the resident’s requests within a reasonable timeframe (12 February 2020) and also appropriately sought to determine if there were any further issues before responding.
While it initially advised the resident in its communication dated 25 February 2020 that it would be able to provide a monthly statement, the landlord later advised on 7 April 2020 that the resident was required to email to request each statement, which would have caused confusion for the resident. It was reasonable, however, that it provided an explanation for this i.e. that it could not auto-generate the monthly statement.
While this issue was not raised as part of the resident’s stage one complaint, given that she had expressed her concern over the landlord’s response to her request, it was appropriate that the landlord addressed the issue in its stage two response. As the resident was unable to access the internet at the library during lockdown, it was appropriate that the landlord agreed in its initial stage two response to send her the monthly statements by post for the “next few months.”
It is evident from the landlord’s updated stage two response that it had issues providing these statements to the resident. While it is not evident that the landlord is required to provide a monthly statement, given that it had previously agreed to provide them to the resident, it was appropriate that it agreed to continue to post the rent statements to the resident. It was also appropriate that the landlord offered £125 compensation for the inconvenience caused to the resident, which is in line with its compensation policy, and is, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, fair and reasonable in the circumstances.

Electricity meter cupboard key

While the resident initially reported her request for a key to the landlord’s contractor in November 2018, it is not evident that this request was forwarded to the landlord. Following her further report directly to the landlord on 19 September 2019, it was appropriate that the landlord acknowledged her report and advised it would respond within 2 working days. It is not evident that it did this, however, as the resident chased it up again on 26 September 2019. While the landlord’s internal email dated 1 October 2019 demonstrates it made some attempt to investigate the key issue, it is not evident it updated the resident, which would have left her unsure as to how her complaint was being resolved, and caused her further inconvenience in needing to chase it up.
The resident again raised this issue on 9 October 2019, however, the landlord did not address this issue in its stage one response dated 15 November 2019, nor did address it in its updated stage one response dated 20 November 2019. As with above, would have left the resident unsure as to how her complaint was being resolved, and caused her further inconvenience in needing to chase it up.
Following the resident’s continued reports regarding the key on 14 December 2019, the landlord again responded that it would contact her regarding the keys within two working days, but again, it is not evident that it followed this up, nor did it comment on it in its advice email dated 25 February 2020, which would have been very frustrating for the resident.
Following her raising the issue again during her meeting with the landlord on 7 March 2020, it was appropriate that the landlord addressed it in its advice email date 7 April 2020, and that it gave a time frame for it to provide the key, i.e. after lockdown restrictions ended. It was also appropriate that it gave an update on this issue in its initial stage two response, where it explained a new lock was being fitted, and reiterated that the key would be provided following lockdown. It was also appropriate that it offered £100 compensation in relation to the delays the resident had experienced.
The Ombudsman would expect that a landlord would follow up on a resident’s report of this nature within a reasonable timeframe which, as demonstrated above, the landlord did not do in this instance, which would have caused distress and inconvenience to the resident. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, this constitutes a service failure, and it is appropriate that an amount of compensation be offered. It its updated stage two response dated 11 March 2021, the landlord appropriately confirmed it had provided the resident with a key, and apologised for its delays. It also appropriately offered a further amount of compensation for the resident’s inconvenience, which is in line with its compensation policy, and in the Ombudsman’s opinion, is reasonable redress for this part of the complaint.

Heating help information

Following the resident’s request that the landlord provide her with “information on heating help” that had been discussed during a recent home visit, the landlord failed to address the issue in its communication on 25 February 2020, which would have left the resident unsure about how to get this information, and inconvenienced her as she had to continue to chase this issue up.
As she raised the issue again on 26 February 2020 and 7 March 2020, it was appropriate that the landlord addressed it in its communication on 7 April 2020. While it was appropriate that it explained that the documents relating to their discussion were unobtainable during lockdown, given that there was no clear timeline of when it could obtain the documents, the Ombudsman would have expected it to have offered to have a new discussion regarding the available heating help, which it did not do in this instance. This left the resident unclear as to when she would receive the information.
While its stage two response invited the resident to contact the landlord if she remembered anything from their conversation regarding the heating help information, as noted above, it would have been helpful for the landlord to have instigated a further discussion. Given that in its updated stage two response simply provided a link to the government’s ‘Warm Home’ scheme, it is not evident why this could not have been provided to the resident in the first instance. It was appropriate, however, that the landlord apologised for its delays, and while it did not offer any compensation specifically for this issue, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, the total amount offered provides reasonable redress for the complaint as a whole.

Copy of complaint’s policy

Following the resident’s request for a copy of the landlord’s complaints policy on 31 January 2020, it was appropriate that the landlord addressed the request in its communication on 25 February 2020, however, it is not evident why it only agreed to “look into” providing her with a copy, rather than attaching it to its communication, or signposting the resident to where she could obtain a copy. It also did not provide a timeline of when it would provide a copy, which would have left uncertain to when this issue would be resolved and caused her further inconvenience in chasing it up.
While this had not been a part of her stage one response, given she had expressed concern over the issue, it was appropriate that in its initial stage two response, the landlord outlined the steps it had taken and confirmed it had been provided in April 2020, which is not disputed. While this service has not been provided of a request for the policy dated 25 November 2019, the landlord’s updated stage two response references this date as the time it became aware of the resident’s request. Given the time that passed between this date and April 2020, it was appropriate that the landlord offered £50 for her inconvenience which is in line with its complaints policy, and is, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, fair and reasonable in the circumstances.

Windows post-inspection

The resident initially report her dissatisfaction with the number of appointments regarding the window installation, in addition to a post-inspection not occurring. While the landlord acknowledged the resident’s reports, it is not evident that it sought to provide an explanation. Following the resident’s continued reports, the landlord advised that its contractors would attend the property, however, it is also not evident that this was arranged.
The landlord addressed the outstanding inspection in its stage one response and advised that its contractors attempted to contact the resident by phone, however, this service has not been provided with any telephone records to demonstrate this. It was appropriate, however, that the landlord advised that no further work was required, and that it offered apology.
Given that the resident had reported her concerns about the number of appointments required to fit the windows, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to address this issue in its stage one response, which it failed to do. This would have left the resident unsure how this part of her complaint would be resolved and inconvenienced her as she had to subsequently chase this up. It was appropriate, therefore, that the landlord provided an updated stage one response which addressed this issue.
In its updated response, the landlord advised that its compensation policy did not allow for compensation where an appointment was made with its contractor. The compensation policy provided to this service notes that “where it is confirmed that an appointment we arranged between you and a contractor was missed by the contractor at no fault of yours, we will compensate you £30 for a missed appointment.” It is not evident, therefore, why the landlord gave this advice. The landlord also noted that it had no evidence of a confirmed appointment with either itself or the contractor that was subsequently missed. The landlord has provided its repair logs to this service, which do not note any missed appointments regarding the windows, and this service has not received any other evidence to dispute this. It was therefore reasonable for the landlord to conclude that it was not required to offer any compensation for missed appointments. It was also appropriate that the landlord advised the resident that an external inspection had been conducted.
Given that the resident continued to raise her concerns about the lack of an internal post-inspection, it was appropriate that the landlord addressed it again in its communication on 25 February 2020. It advised that it had already arranged for a surveyor to assess her windows, and would raise it again, however, based on the evidence provided to this service, it is not evident that any arrangements were made, and it did not subsequently follow this up with the resident or provider with any timeline, which the Ombudsman would consider best practice in the circumstances. It reiterated this advice in its communication on 7 April 2020, but again, it is not evident that any arrangements with a surveyor were made.
It was appropriate that in its stage two response, the landlord reiterated that it had completed an external inspection and did not plan to carry out an internal inspection. It was also appropriate that in its updated stage two response, the landlord apologised for not making this point clearer to the resident, and that it subsequently offered £50 compensation for her time and inconvenience chasing it up, which was in line with the its complaints policy and is, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, fair and reasonable in the circumstances.

Repairs to toilet flush

The landlord’s responsive repairs policy notes that it will attend to a routine repair within 20 working days. The resident initially reported an issue with her toilet flush on 18 September 2019, however, it is not evident that any repairs were subsequently arranged by the landlord. The landlord also did not address the issue in either its initial or updated stage one response. The resident subsequently raised the issue again on 21 February 2020, however, the landlord also failed to address the issue in its communication on 25 February 2020, which would have left the resident unsure as to how her complaint was being resolved, and caused her further inconvenience in needing to chase it up.
It was appropriate that the landlord addressed the issue in its communication on 7 April 2020, and its position that it could not complete the works during lockdown as it did not consider it an emergency, was reasonable. It was also appropriate that the landlord addressed the issue in its initial stage two response by apologising for its delays and confirming that the works had been completed.
Given the delays between the resident’s initial report and the work being completed, it was appropriate that the landlord made an offer of compensation (£75) in its updated stage two response, which was in line with the its complaints policy and is, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, fair and reasonable in the circumstances.

Complaints handling

The landlord’s complaints policy notes that it will acknowledge a complaint within two working days and provide a stage one response within 10 working days of a complaint. It is evident from the resident’s communications in May 2019 that she was dissatisfied with the number of appointments for the installation of her windows. The landlord did not acknowledge these reports until 13 June 2019, however, it appropriately apologised for the delay to its acknowledgement.
Following the resident’s further communications in September and October 2019, the landlord provided its stage one response on 15 November 2019, which was beyond the time frame noted in its complaints policy. It is also not evident that it advised that its response would be delayed, which the Ombudsman considers best practice. It was appropriate, therefore, that it apologised for its delays and for not keeping the resident updated. It was also appropriate that it provided its updated stage one response in a reasonable amount of time and that it offered an amount of compensation for its delay, which was in line with its compensation policy.
Following the resident’s ongoing concerns, it was appropriate that the landlord provided responses on 25 February 2020 and 7 April 2020. While these responses were not part of the landlord’s internal complaints procedure, it was evident that the landlord was initially seeking to provide assistance to the resident outside of a formal investigation. While this approach is reasonable, it would have been helpful for the landlord to have advised the resident her options regarding seeking a formal response.
It is evident that following the resident’s ongoing concerns about multiple other complaints, along with the correspondence with the landlord by this service, there was some confusion about what response needed to be provided for each complaint. It is evident from the internal correspondence provided to this service by the landlord that it conducted a thorough investigation into the complaints, however, it also evident that despite the confusion, the stage two response was significantly delayed. It was appropriate therefore that the landlord apologised for the delay in its stage two response and made an offer of compensation.
While the offer of compensation was accepted by the resident, given the significant delays, it was appropriate that the landlord returned to the issue in its updated stage two response and made a further offer of compensation of £250, which was the maximum available under its compensation policy.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, and in the Ombudsman’s opinion, there was reasonable redress offered by the landlord for its service failures in respect of the complaints regarding its:
1. response to the resident’s request for rent statements to be posted to her monthly;
2. response to the resident’s request for a key to the communal electricity meter cupboard;
3. response to the resident’s request for information about heating help through the government’s ‘Warm Home’ scheme;
4. response to the resident’s request for a copy of the landlord’s complaints policy;
5. response to the resident’s request for a post-inspection of her windows; and
6. response to the resident’s reports of disrepair to her toilet flush; and
7. complaints handling.

Reasons