Notting Hill Genesis (NHG) (202016598)

A blue and grey text

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202016598

Notting Hill Genesis

1 August 2023

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

This complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. handling of heating and hot water repairs;
2. response to the resident’s staff conduct concerns;
3. communication;
4. response to the resident’s standing order queries;
5. complaint handling;
6. record keeping.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is an assured (non-shorthold) tenant. The information seen suggests, following a prolonged dispute about her eligibility, she succeeded her late father’s tenancy on 3 February 2022. She previously acted as his representative. The property is a 1 bedroom ground-floor flat in a block with a communal heating system. The succession is the subject of another Ombudsman complaint (our reference 202208005).
The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints procedure. Its complaints policy shows it aims to respond to complaints in 10 working days at stage 1. At stage 2, it aims to respond in 20 working days. In exceptional circumstances, the landlord may agree an alternative timescale with the resident. Reviews will be completed by a manager that was not involved in the original decision.

Summary of events

The property’s repair history shows its heat interface unit (HIU) broke down on a number of occasions in February 2020. It also shows there was a leak that month. The parties agree the leak damaged the HIU, which regulates the property’s heating and hot water. The resident said the defective unit increased her father’s energy bills. The information seen indicates a replacement circuit board, installed mid-April 2020, improved the situation for several months.
In mid-September 2020 social services contacted the landlord about the property’s hot water supply. The email said there was no temperature control and, given the resident’s father was vulnerable, the situation was a potential safeguarding issue. The repair history shows a works order to address the HIU was raised the same day. The notes said the order was prompted by a formal complaint.
From the landlord’s correspondence, the following events occurred between 4 and 9 November 2020:
1. The landlord’s complaint handler contacted the resident by email. They apologised for a delay, acknowledged the resident had sent “numerous” chaser emails, and asked her to confirm the current situation.
2. After speaking to the resident, the complaint handler emailed her an action plan based on their discussion. They said they were awaiting billing information from the resident, but the landlord’s heating contractor would contact her to arrange a survey, and HIU improvement works in 2 phases.
3. A contractor inspected the property’s taps and radiators with a view to resolving temperature issues. HIU improvement works scheduled for the same day were delayed due to a technical problem. (The landlord’s repair records did not capture details of any appointments on this date).
The landlord issued a stage 1 response on 12 November 2020. The timeline suggests this was around 2 months after a complaint was raised. The landlord apologised for delays relating to HIU repairs and historic billing issues. It also acknowledged the water temperature presented a scalding risk to the resident’s elderly father. The main points were:
1. The landlord was unable to confirm the duration of the February 2020 leak. Nevertheless, it could see repairs were extensive and took 7 weeks in total. Further, the property lacked heating and hot water for 8 days and HIU parts were delayed by the pandemic.
2. The landlord awarded £200 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused during this time. It also agreed to refund the property’s February to March 2020 energy bills in full. This refund amounted to £86.04
3. A previous repair attempt, in October 2020, was unsuccessful because the temperature was only temporarily reduced. Given the time taken to resolve the issue, the landlord would install thermostatic mixing valves (TMVs) at its own cost.
4. Improvement works to the block’s communal heating system were ongoing. They included improvements to the HIU in each property. Exterior and interior isolation valves would be installed over 2 respective phases. The landlord would complete corresponding works to the property in due course.
5. Having considered the overall timeline, the landlord identified 4 missed appointments in total. It would therefore award an additional £120 bringing the overall compensation to £406.04. A cheque would be issued on the resident’s acceptance.
Social services chased the repairs in late November 2020. Related correspondence between the landlord and the resident suggests the heating/hot water works began around 2 weeks later.
The landlord’s correspondence confirms the following events occurred between 10 and 23 December 2020:
1. The landlord’s local representative (the representative) emailed the resident about her father’s energy payments. They said the landlord’s new energy provider had not received a response to its previous letters, which advised him to contact his bank and cancel a standing order to the old supplier. Further, a new standing order to the correct provider should be created, and “all payments (had) been uploaded” on her father’s new account.
2. A week later, following a further chaser from the representative, the resident confirmed the standing order was cancelled. She said the account with the new provider was in credit. The next day, she queried where her father’s standing order funds were. This was on the basis the new account did not reflect his previous payments to the old supplier as indicated. The resident asked the representative to help reimburse the funds.
3. The parties exchanged further emails. The representative repeated the previous information about uploaded payments and asked if there were standing orders for each supplier. They agreed to contact the new supplier for instructions with a view to resolving the situation. In a same day reply, the resident confirmed there was only 1 standing order. She disputed receiving letters about a supplier change, and that the payments were uploaded as stated.
4. After further contact with the new supplier, the representative updated the resident. They said the landlord’s contract with the old provider had ended. Further, residents were advised to cancel their existing payments in 2017. In addition, “several contacts were also made and a final letter was sent May 2019”. They also said the landlord was working with the old provider to upload any payments made after May 2019, and it hoped to complete the reconciliation in the new year.
5. The resident replied the same day. She asked why the cancellation request had only been made that month. She also asked where the standing order payments were. She said her father’s payments should be reimbursed and not added to his account as additional credit. Further, the matter was straightforward for the supplier to resolve and she would await a response through the representative. No information was seen to show the representative replied to this email.
6. The landlord updated the resident about the repairs. It said both phases of the HIU improvement works were complete. However, TMV installation and HIU settings works remained outstanding. The resident replied TMVs had been installed but thermostatic radiator valves (TRVs) were outstanding. She also said issues with the water flow and temperature were ongoing despite the TMVs.
The landlord updated the resident by email on 20 January 2021. It said it would examine the HIU settings and a half day appointment was needed. It also agreed TRV works were outstanding. It asked the resident to confirm her availability for the works. Further, it would ensure a specific engineer did not attend in line with the resident’s preference. The complaint handler also said they were willing to attend the appointment personally to ensure quality standards. The landlord chased the resident’s response 5 days later.
On 28 January 2021 the resident told the landlord her father had died. She said the repair issues were unresolved after 11 months. She asked if the compensation could be increased given the circumstances. She said the money would help with her father’s funeral expenses. Within days, the complaint handler referred to a senior colleague. The relevant internal correspondence said there were outstanding remedial works to TRVs, which the landlord offered to complete as a goodwill gesture. This was on the basis the resident reported “they were too hot to touch”.
On 10 February 2021 the landlord revised its compensation offer. It expressed sorrow at the resident’s news and agreed matters should be resolved quickly. It offered a further £250 in compensation comprising: £100 for overall duration of the HIU issues, £50 for gathering billing information from energy providers and chasing the landlord, and an extra £100 relating to missed appointments. The new compensation total was £656. A bank transfer would be arranged on the resident’s approval. The resident accepted the following day. Neither party referenced the outstanding repairs.
In an email on 18 February 2021, the landlord asked the resident for proof of payment details. It said an image of a either a bank card or statement was needed. The next day, the resident replied she was uncomfortable with this suggestion. She asked the landlord to issue a cheque or a refund request form. In internal correspondence on 22 February 2021, the landlord said its finance team was only processing BACs payments or account credits at present.
On 26 February 2021, the representative told the resident the compensation needed to be paid into her father’s account. They reiterated the proof required and advised a cheque was not possible. They said, “If you are dealing with his affairs, I will assume you have access to his accounts”.
The resident emailed the representative on 12 March 2021. She said their email was insensitive and she was not unwilling to provide bank details through a form. Further, her cheque suggestion was consistent with the landlord’s stage 1 response. She also raised concerns about the landlord’s data handling. For example, she said its engineers had called and text her late father’s phone on 25 February 2021, but she received a corresponding confirmation email. Her main points were:
1. The resident never consented to receiving appointment emails and her dad never received calls/texts. The landlord’s previous communication was by call/text to the resident. She felt her details had been “passed on”.
2. The landlord held 2 copies of her father’s death certificate. It was unclear why it was trying to call him. Further, various parties, including social services, had been removed from an email chain along with previous responses. The resident was concerned this further evidenced her security concerns.
3. The resident had no problem with the payment being processed in her late father’s name, but she wanted to provide payment details in a secure fashion. She was willing to discuss an alternative method if necessary.
4. The HIU issue remained unresolved. The resident felt the landlord had exceeded its applicable timescales. The matter should therefore be closed and the agreed compensation provided.
The resident raised a further complaint on 22 March 2021. She said it was unfair she was still dealing with unresolved issues between the landlord and her late father. She referenced disrepair issues “over the years” and straightforward matters being prolonged, ignored or dismissed. She also said she was no longer comfortable communicating with the representative. Further, their actions were previously and remained questionable. Her main points were:
1. The resident was unhappy with the representative’s actions towards her, her personal information and anything concerning her father. Their recent emails were hurtful, undermining and contained incorrect information.
2. The resident’s calls went unanswered and emails were not returned. The resident had records of previous correspondence and could show issues were “unaddressed, deleted or deliberately ignored”.
The next day, the landlord acknowledged the complaint. It expressed condolences and preference to resolve matters promptly. It apologised for any offence caused and asked the resident for copies of inappropriate contact, along with details of any processes it had handled incorrectly. It said this would allow a full investigation. However, the representative managed the tenancy and the resident would need to liaise with them going forwards. Still, the resident could copy their supervisor into any correspondence.
The representative emailed the resident on 26 March 2021. They apologised for appearing insensitive and their delayed reply. They said they would discuss the compensation with the landlord’s finance team. In a further email the same day, they said the finance team wanted to speak to the resident directly. The representative asked if they could provide her contact number. No information was seen to show the resident responded.
The resident updated the Ombudsman the same day. She questioned: if speaking to the landlord’s finance team was appropriate, why the landlord’s HIU complaint handler was removed from the case, and whether it was fair for the representative to replace them. In addition to broadly restating her concerns, the resident raised the following new points:
1. The representative ignored her emails between June 2020 and March 2021. Intervention from social services was ultimately required. They were supposed to have the defective HIU inspected to ensure the property’s utilities were billed correctly. This never happened.
2. Standing order payments to the utilities account over 19 months were supposed to be reimbursed. The representative left this matter unresolved. They also declined to pay the recent compensation award directly to the resident.
3. Neither a stage 2 response nor a closure notification had been issued and the resident’s data/security concerns were unaddressed.
On 1 April 2021 the resident emailed her local MP. The email was addressed to the landlord’s supervisor but the landlord’s email address was not included in the “to” box. The resident included some supporting evidence (we were unable to view the original email attachments but have likely seen the information elsewhere). She said the landlord should retrieve the rest of the evidence from the representative and its records. Her main points were:
1. The representative failed to address the concerns in the resident’s 12 March 2021 email. The landlord was still contacting her father’s phone.
2. There had been “a considerable amount of data breaches” in recent months, in addition to “untruths documented” and “security concerns raised”. The representative had failed to address these issues.
The supervisor updated the resident on 8 April 2021. This was around 12 working days after her 2nd complaint. They said the landlord would close the complaint. because, despite 2 email requests, she failed to provide additional evidence. Further, the landlord had no record of any outstanding repairs and, having reviewed its contact history, found no communication to support the resident’s conduct concerns. The landlord was sorry for any offence caused. It would reopen the case if the resident provided the requested information. In addition, her contact details had been passed to its finance department, which would call in due course.
Around 12 April 2021, we asked the landlord to respond to the complaint. In a same day email, the landlord asked the resident which complaint (from the HIU and conduct cases) needed escalating. It restated it was keen to resolve the HIU case and advised the supervisor was happy to discuss matters. Further, a joint call could be arranged with the stage 1 handler. On 16 April 2021 the MP forwarded the landlord an email from the resident. It confirmed both cases should be escalated.
The landlord updated the resident by email on 11 May 2021. It confirmed both cases were escalated and apologised for its delayed notification. The information seen shows it was aware of her 26 March 2021 update to the Ombudsman. It said the independent reviewer had seen the resident’s 3rd party correspondence. However, the evidence requested on 23 March 2021 was still needed.
On 27 May 2021 the landlord responded to the resident’s conduct concerns at stage 2. This was around 28 working days after the MPs confirmation email. It thanked the resident for her 1 April 2021 email, which it noted was only addressed to the MP. It said it couldn’t locate the original copy in its inboxes. The landlord felt this explained its follow up emails requesting more information. It also said it was previously unable to address the complaint at either stage until additional information was provided. Further, though they were not technically addressed at stage 1, the response would address the issues raised in the email. The main points were:
1. Complaints were logged by the receiving member of the landlord’s staff. A brief overview of the landlord’s complaint management system was included in the response.
2. The landlord’s investigation highlighted an ongoing issue with utility payments. In December 2020, its former supplier advised the landlord it was unable to contact the resident’s late father to instruct him to cancel the payments. The representative relayed this information to the resident and began to liaise with the supplier to answer her queries.
3. From its records, the landlord could see the representative failed to respond to a related email on 22 December 2021. The landlord was sorry about this. Its information showed 2 of the resident’s questions were answered in previous correspondence.
4. The utility company said it had written a number of letters about the payments. The representative’s correspondence on 10 and 22 December 2020 explained the landlord had switched its provider. Their most recent update confirmed the landlord was working with the provider to “reconcile accounts”.
5. The landlord was sorry it did not answer the resident’s previous question about whether the funds would be reimbursed or credited to an account. Since it was unsure about the property’s present account situation (given the succession application), the resident was encouraged to speak to the supplier direct. Nevertheless, the landlord should have chased the relevant information before her late father’s death. The landlord was sorry for any distress caused. It awarded the resident £150 in compensation.
6. The landlord was sorry about the communication to her late father’s phone. Some notifications were system generated and could not be stopped. If a phone number was removed from the system, automatic emails would still be sent. This landlord acknowledged this system flaw could cause undue distress. It had been advised implementing a system “pause” should resolve similar issues.
7. The landlord was working with its relevant teams to amend its existing bereavement processes. It was sorry about any distress caused. It awarded the resident £150 in compensation. It believed her contact number (provided) was on its system. If notified, the landlord would investigate any further contact to her father’s phone.
8. The landlord was advised it held the resident’s phone number because her late father often advised its staff to speak to her about housing matters. It also had her email address. It generally held next of kin contact details in case of emergency. As her father’s contact, the resident would receive texts confirming appointment dates. However, she should notify the landlord what 3rd parties had been contacting her. It could not see the resident’s phone number was previously removed.
9. The landlord was grateful to the resident for copies of the omitted emails. Having reviewed them, the landlord suspected the reply button (rather than reply all) had been used in relation to an email on 18 February 2021. In respect to an email on 26 February 2021, it would have been useful if the representative’s response included all the previous emails in the chain. However, the landlord did not feel this was mandatory.
10. Since the landlord’s initial complaint handler had left its service, it was unable to clarify the omission. Nevertheless, the landlord did not feel it was malicious and the email content was not controversial.
11. Since it did not refer to the resident’s late father as deceased, the representative’s 26 February 2021 email could have been worded better. The landlord appreciated the resident could find this inconsiderate and thoughtless. The landlord did not feel this was intended. Since this was how the resident felt, it offered £150 in compensation.
12. This brought the total compensation to £450 comprising: £150 for poor communication, service failure for texts sent to the resident’s late father’s phone, and £150 for distress caused by an insensitively worded email. The landlord was unable to investigate repair/defect issues based on the information provided. It would investigate if the resident could forward the relevant correspondence.
On 8 June 2021 the landlord’s HIU complaint reviewer emailed the resident about the complaint. They introduced themselves and asked: what aspects of the stage 1 response were incomplete, whether the compensation award was fair and whether there were any outstanding remedial actions. Around this time, the Ombudsman asked the resident to provide a grant of probate or letter of authority to proceed with her complaint. On 14 June 2021, the resident advised the reviewer she was awaiting addition information but would respond in due course.
The resident updated the reviewer on 16 July 2021. She said, since several staff members were involved at various stages, the situation was confusing. Further, the landlord’s previous contact suggested the representative was reviewing the complaint, and they should have issued a response in February 2021. This was when they took over from the stage 1 handler, who’s departure had little bearing on the delays. The resident said she was presently unable to provide any further information. However, she only needed the landlord’s final response. She asked when she could expect to receive it and the date the stage 1 handler departed.
The landlord’s stage 2 response to the HIU complaint was dated 12 August 2021. This was around 4 months after the MP confirmed the resident’s escalation request. No information was seen to show how the response was issued. It said the landlord discussed the case with the stage 1 handler before their departure in April 2021. Nevertheless, the response wording confirms the landlord was unaware of its revised compensation offer, at stage 1, on 10 February 2021. This is because the response said the total stage 1 compensation was £406.04. The key points were:
1. In relation to the initial leak, the landlord previously awarded £200 for distress and inconvenience. On review, it wanted to increase this award by £50 based on the time taken to resolve the matter. Its previous offer to refund the property’s bills between February and April 2020 was fair given the circumstances. It would also refund 10% of the property’s daily rent, £14.33 a day, for the 8 days the property lacked heating and hot water. This amounted to £11.44.
2. Regarding the water temperature, the landlord understood the resident’s concerns about scalding. The property was surveyed for TMVs on 9 November 2020 and a quote was obtained. An appointment to complete the works was delayed at the resident’s request. This was due to the pandemic and her father’s health. Still, the landlord awarded the resident £50 compensation to recognise the previous delay.
3. The landlord’s previous award of £120 compensation for 4 missed appointments during the overall timeline was in line with its compensation policy. However, there were complaint handling delays at stages 1 and 2. The landlord felt the stage 1 handler’s recent exit was a contributing factor. It awarded £100 in compensation to recognise the delays.
4. This brought the landlord’s compensation to £617.48 comprising: £300 for distress and inconvenience, £11.44 for time without heating and hot water, £86.04 for refunded bills, £120 for missed appointments and £100 for complaint handling delays. (The timeline suggests the correct total should have been £867.44)
During internal correspondence on 3 November 2021, the landlord said it hadn’t heard from the resident since issuing its final response to the HIU complaint. Further, she previously declined to speak over the phone. On 21 December 2021, the resident began contacting the Ombudsman again after obtaining the necessary information to proceed. She said she was keen to resolve her 2 outstanding cases. She attached a historic form which the landlord previously used to issue compensation.
During an email in early May 2022, the resident told us she was still being badly treated the representative and their team. For example, she said her late father’s “housing account was still live and (he) was still being addressed as living”. In addition, contractors were still contacting his phone and the landlord was failing to complete annual safety checks to the property. The correspondence confirms she had several new concerns at this stage, which did not relate to her original complaints. Her main points were:
1. Between February and August 2021 the resident began receiving emails after her details were used without permission. This situation continued after the resident complained. However, between August 2021 and February 2022, her email was removed from all the landlord mailing lists. She was unsure why.
2. Between November 2021 and February 2022, a contractor “continually” contacted her late father’s phone about appointments. When no response was received, it began corresponding with him as if he were alive. Though she made herself available for the scheduled appointments, no engineers attended. After enquiring, the resident found everything was still under her late father’s name.
3. The representative continued to write to her father and there were issues obtaining water meter readings. During a recent communal heating system outage, the landlord called to check her father was safe. Overall, the situation was “unfair, unsafe and unethical”. The HIU complaint response was outstanding and previous compensation was unpaid. The resident felt she was being treated differently to other tenants.
The resident updated us again on 26 August 2022. She said she had found the landlord’s stage 2 HIU response in her mailbox “many weeks after the letter was composed”. Further, posting the letter was contrary to her preference for email contact and the reviewer failed to respond to her questions from 16 July 2021. She said the response failed to fully address her concerns, the compensation was decreased, and the HIU issue was unresolved after 30 months. Following this email, the resident remained in frequent contact with the Ombudsman. She continued to provide evidence relating to various, broadly new, issues.
The resident updated the Ombudsman during a phone call on 27 July 2023. She raised numerous concerns about the landlord’s actions during the succession process and alleged it “fabricated” a complaint response around October 2022. It was understood she felt victimised by the representative and their supervisor. For example, she said the landlord cut her off from various services and failed to address her reports of repairs. She also had concerns about its handling of a previous subject access request (SAR). Her key points were:
1. The HIU was still defective and this was causing problems with the property’s energy bills. A TRV was also outstanding for the bathroom radiator.
2. The landlord’s complaint handling was procedurally unfair. For example, the representative was dealing with the resident’s HIU complaint whilst she had simultaneous concerns about their own conduct.
3. The landlord failed to refund 19 months of standing order payments her late father made to its old supplier.

Assessment and findings

It is recognised the situation is distressing for the resident. The timeline shows it has been ongoing for a considerable period of time. It also shows the resident has multiple concerns about the landlord’s actions and approach over several years. It is understood she is particularly concerned about its handling of her succession application. Nevertheless, this assessment is focussed on the landlord’s response to the resident’s HIU and staff conduct complaints.
This is because the other issues were raised later in timeline and we haven’t seen the landlord’s related case evidence. In addition the resident’s own evidence, which included some more recent complaint responses, was not sufficient to make a fair assessment. It is acknowledged this will be disappointing for the resident. Following this report, we will ensure her other concerns are progressed accordingly. Where the Ombudsman identifies failure on a landlord’s part, we can consider the resulting distress, inconvenience, and loss of amenity where applicable.

The landlord’s handling of heating and hot water repairs

On 11 February 2021, the resident accepted the landlord’s revised stage 1 complaint settlement. The timeline shows this settlement included commitments to examine the HIU settings and install TRVs, along with an offer of £656 in compensation. No information was seen to undermine this settlement, which the evidence suggests both parties felt was fair at the time. The parties both expressed a preference for resolving matters quickly given the circumstances. Nevertheless, the timeline shows the agreed resolution was never implemented.
It also suggests the agreed actions remain outstanding around 34 months later based on the timing of this assessment. For example, it is unclear whether the HIU settings were subsequently adjusted during an annual inspection, or a later repair. The above calculation reflects the period between mid-September 2020 and July 2023. This timescale was both inappropriate and unfair to the resident. That said, the timeline points to a number of mitigating factors. For example, it shows TMVs were installed and indicates only 1 TRV in the bathroom remains outstanding.
Given the above, it is reasonable to conclude the risk of scalding presented by the property’s hot water outlets was significantly reduced over the above identified period. In contrast, in conjunction with the resident’s July 2023 update to the Ombudsman, the landlord’s internal correspondence from late January 2021 indicates the bathroom radiator may have remained excessively hot to touch. Nevertheless, the information seen points to a limited impact overall. For example, the repair history indicates no repairs were reported between February 2021 and February 2022.
In late January 2021, the resident was asked to confirm her availability for the outstanding repairs. Given the circumstances, it was understandable her attention was devoted to more pressing matters. It was noted neither party raised the topic of outstanding repairs during the parties’ interactions the following month. However, the resident’s 12 March 2021 email clearly raised the outstanding HIU issue. No information was seen to show the landlord acted on this information, which should have at least been relayed to the stage 1 complaint handler for action.
In any case, the landlord’s failure to act on the information was inappropriate. Subsequently, from around April 2021, the landlord began to request details of the outstanding issues. Whilst the resident could have directly clarified the matter, this should not have been reasonably necessary given 2 of the landlord’s operatives were already aware of the outstanding repair issues. Ultimately, the landlord should have processes in place to keep track of outstanding repairs. Given the above, the timeline points to a record keeping failure.
In summary, despite a clear reminder from the resident, the landlord failed to action HIU and TRV repairs agreed during a stage 1 complaint settlement. The timeline suggests these repairs remain outstanding around 34 months later. This timescale was inappropriate and unfair to the resident. The Ombudsman will order increased compensation to put things right based on the information seen. We will discount the related compensation the landlord offered at stage 2. This is because its stage 2 response failed to reflect the parties’ previous agreement.
Given the above, the evidence shows there was maladministration in respect of this complaint point.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s staff conduct concerns

The resident has serious concerns about the landlord’s staff conduct. They centre on the representative and their supervisor. It is understood the severity of these concerns developed over time. As mentioned, this assessment is focussed on the complaint issues that were raised with the landlord during the above timeline. Nevertheless, we considered the evidence carefully with the resident’s concerns in mind. No information was seen to show the landlord’s staff conduct was deliberately inappropriate.
In other words, there was no evidence to show its actions towards the resident, or her late father, were malicious, or that the family were treated differently based on their personal characteristics. The timeline suggests the landlord awarded the resident a total of £150 in conduct related compensation. This was based on the representative’s failure to respond to the resident’s 22 December 2020 email, and the wording or their correspondence on 26 February 2021. The timeline suggests the landlord’s redress was proportionate to address these issues.
For example, the representative should have replied to the resident’s December 2020 email and their February 2021 correspondence was insensitive. It failed to refer to the resident’s father as ‘late’ and the tone was inappropriate. Given her recent loss, the landlord should have recognised the resident was temporarily vulnerable and acted with due sensitivity. It was appropriate that the representative subsequently apologised. However, the timeline suggests the landlord overlooked their failure to respond to the resident’s email on 12 March 2021.
Given the resident’s complaint concerned a failure to respond to correspondence, the landlord should have recognised the above error and addressed it accordingly. This amounts to service failure on the landlord’s part. The Ombudsman will therefore order increased compensation proportionate to the failure identified. From the information seen, we were unable to identify any additional conduct related failures which the landlord failed to address. For example, the information seen indicates the representative was relaying information from the landlord’s accounts department.

The landlord’s communication

The resident has serious concerns about the landlord’s data handling. They include security and consent issues. The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) is an independent body that specialises in upholding data protection and information rights. Since the Ombudsman is not specialist in these matters, the above aspects of the resident’s complaint are better suited to the ICO. That said, we can consider the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns.
In its relevant final response, the landlord said the resident’s experience with her late father’s phone highlighted a flaw in its systems. The response wording suggests the landlord referred the matter to its IT team, which recommended the system pause solution. The landlord said it would work with its policy team to include the pause in its bereavement processes. This demonstrated an appropriate level of engagement with the resident’s concerns and a willingness to learn from her negative experience.
Given the flaw’s potential to cause avoidable distress, the above were appropriate actions. The landlord also awarded the resident £150 in related compensation and agreed to investigate any additional texts. This was also appropriate and proportionate given the circumstances. The information seen suggests, from November 2021 onwards, the resident received additional contact to her late father’s phone. This indicates the landlord’s remedial actions may have overlooked some aspects of the system flaw.
No information was seen to show the resident reported this contact to the landlord. In general, landlords need to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any issues accordingly, prior to the Ombudsman’s involvement. The timeline suggests further contact began around 5 months after the landlord’s relevant final response. It was noted email communication to her late father did not form part of the resident’s original complaint. Since the landlord responded to the resident’s data handling concerns accordingly, there was reasonable redress in respect of this complaint point.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s standing order queries

The landlord awarded the resident £150 in respect of its response to her standing order queries. This broadly on the basis, with quicker action, more could have been done to resolve matters before her late father’s death. This was proportionate given the duration, around 6 weeks based on the period between mid-December 2020 and 28 January 2021, of the delay. It also said the resident should speak directly to its previous energy supplier to resolve matters. This was not unreasonable given the circumstances.
For example, the information seen suggests the parties were in dispute over the resident’s eligibility to succeed the tenancy between late January 2021 and early February 2022. The evidence suggests the bereavement significantly changed the circumstances for both parties. It is therefore reasonable to conclude any efforts to reconcile the energy accounts afterwards may have complicated the situation for both parties. Given the above, there was reasonable redress in respect of this complaint point. No information was seen to suggest the landlord was responsible for an outstanding refund.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The timeline highlights significant issues with the landlord’s complaint handling. For example, it points to combined complaint handling delays, across both cases, of around 6 months in total. Whilst its stage 2 HIU complaint response attempted to award proportionate redress, the landlord’s other responses could have reasonably considered awarding delay related compensation. This is because an apology is likely insufficient to redress delays of more than a couple of days.
In addition, the information seen indicates the landlord’s stage 2 HIU complaint handler failed to respond to an email in July 2021, and the response was issued by post. Since the timeline suggests previous contact between the parties was broadly by email, this approach was inconsistent. The resident said the posted response was contrary to her stated preference for email communication. Further, the response was not received for several months until the resident found it in a mailbox. The landlord should ensure its responses are issued in line with a resident’s communication preferences. It could also consider issuing posted responses by email as well.
More significantly, the timeline points to a tendency towards informal complaint handling. For example, the landlord’s revised HIU compensation offer was made at stage 1. Given the parties were close to an agreement and searching for a solution, this was not inappropriate. However, the landlord could have done more to clarify the situation. For example, it could have reasonably told the resident her concerns around implementing the agreed resolution were not treated as an escalation request. In others words, it could have advised her that escalation was still an option if she remained dissatisfied.
Given her broadly simultaneous conduct complaint about the representative, the resident had legitimate concerns around procedural fairness. However, with regards to the HIU complaint, the information seen shows the representative was only involved in attempts to arrange the compensation payment. Again, the situation would have ideally been clarified to avoid any confusion. The timeline shows the confusion was further compounded by the number of staff involved. For example, there were separate handlers at stages 1 and 2, along with the representative and supervisor.
It is reasonable to conclude this made it more difficult for both parties to keep track of events. For example, the timeline shows the resident felt the HIU complaint had been escalated when the representative became involved. While this was not the case, the misunderstanding seemingly contributed to a deterioration in the parties’ relationship. It is reasonable to conclude the situation was avoidable and distressing. Further, the onus was on the landlord to communicate its actions clearly.
There were similar issues with the supervisor’s informal response to the resident’s conduct concerns on 8 April 2021. Contrary to section 3.15 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code), as published in July 2020, it failed to include: the complaint stage, the outcome, or details of how to escalate the matter. The information seen suggests the email was intended to be a pre-stage 1 response. In other words, the landlord would have undertaken a stage 1 investigation if the resident provided more information.
Again, the situation should have reasonably been made clear to the resident. Given the above, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling. It demonstrated an inappropriate tendency towards informal complaint handling that undermined its attempt to resolve matters and increased the resident’s distress. The timeline suggests it also failed to consistently consider its own complaint handling or its prior method of communication with the resident.

The landlord’s record keeping

The timeline points to broad issues with the landlord’s record keeping. For example, its repair records did not reflect the survey/inspection on 9 November 2020. Further, as mentioned in the relevant section above, the evidence suggests the landlord was unable to use its repair history, following its revised stage 1 offer, to identify the outstanding HIU and TRV repairs. This was inappropriate given the circumstances and the survey should have been captured in the records.
More significantly, the timeline confirms the landlord was unable to reference its revised, stage 1, HIU complaint settlement during its stage 2 investigation. This was key information that should have been clearly detailed in the landlord’s complaint records. The information seen confirms the landlord ultimately undermined its previous settlement to the frustration of the resident. It is reasonable to conclude the situation was avoidable with appropriate record keeping.
A landlord should have systems in place to maintain accurate records of repair reports, responses, inspections and investigations. The Ombudsman’s May 2023 Spotlight On: Knowledge and Information Management (KIM) report confirms good record keeping is vital to evidence the action a landlord has taken and failure to keep adequate records indicates the landlord’s complaints processes are not operating effectively. Staff should be aware of a landlord’s record management policy and procedures and adhere to these, as should contractors or managing agents.
Overall, the above shows the landlord’s record keeping was inappropriate on several occasions. Given the avoidable distress caused to the resident, the failures identified amount to maladministration in respect of the landlord’s record keeping.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s:
1. handling of heating and hot water repairs
2. complaint handling
3. record keeping.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s staff conduct concerns.
In accordance with paragraph 53 of the was Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was reasonable redress in respect of the landlord’s:
1. communication.
2. response to the resident’s standing order concerns.

Reasons

Despite a clear reminder from the resident, the landlord failed to action HIU and TRV repairs agreed during a stage 1 complaint settlement. The timeline suggests the repairs remain outstanding around 34 months later. This timescale was inappropriate and unfair to the resident.
There were significant issues with the landlord’s complaint handling, including delays and unanswered correspondence. More importantly, the landlord tended towards informal complaint handling causing considerable confusion for the resident.
The evidence shows the landlord’s repair and complaints record keeping was inappropriate on several occasions. For example, the timeline suggests the landlord ultimately undermined a previous complaint response.
The evidence suggests the landlord overlooked the representative’s failure to respond to the resident’s 12 March 2021 email during its response to her related conduct concerns.
The landlord addressed the resident’s communication concerns accordingly. It took appropriate action to address a highlighted system flaw and awarded the resident proportionate compensation
Given the delay, the landlord awarded proportionate compensation in respect of the resident’s standing order queries. Since the circumstances changed for both parties, the landlord’s advice to contact its previous energy supplier direct was not unreasonable.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord to complete the outstanding heating repairs within 4 weeks. It should share details of the completed repairs with the Ombudsman. The information seen suggests TRV repairs are necessary, but it is unclear whether the HIU issue remains outstanding. The landlord should be directed by the resident in this matter.
The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay the resident a total of £1,506 in compensation within 4 weeks. The landlord is free to deduct any relevant compensation it has previously paid from the above total. However, the information seen suggests its previous redress remains outstanding. Compensation should be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any arrears. The compensation comprises:
1. £856 for any distress and inconvenience the resident was caused by the above identified delays and failures in respect of the landlord’s handling of heating and hot water repairs.
2. £200 for any distress and inconvenience the resident was caused by the above identified failures in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s staff conduct concerns.
3. £150 which the landlord previously awarded in respect of its communication.
4. £150 which the landlord previously awarded in respect of its response to the resident’s standing order concerns.
5. £150 for any distress and inconvenience the resident was caused by the landlord’s complaint handling and record keeping failures.
The landlord to review the key case findings around complaint handling and record keeping. Within 4 weeks it should provide the Ombudsman a report detailing how it intends to improve its performance in these areas. The report should confirm the changes implemented. Relevant learning should be cascaded to the landlord’s related staff for training/improvement purposes.

Recommendations

The landlord to update the resident about the improvements it made to its bereavement processes as a result of the resident’s case.
The landlord should provide evidence of compliance with the above orders and confirm its intentions with regards to the recommendation within 4 weeks.