Notting Hill Genesis (NHG) (202104963)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202104963

Notting Hill Genesis

29 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

The resident’s complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. The resident’s Subject Access Request.
2. His reports of pests and requests for associated works.
3. His temporary decant request.
4. Its communication during handover of cases between staff.
This service has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42(K) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspect of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s Subject Access Request.
The resident expressed concern about the landlord’s handling of a Subject Access Request and the amount of time it was taking to provide this information.
Paragraph 42(K) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which in the Ombudsman’s opinion, fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint-handling body. In this instance the Information Commissioners’ Office may consider complaints relating to Subject Access Requests. The landlord correctly informed the resident of this in its correspondence to him on 21 January 2021.

Background and summary of events

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, a housing association. The property is a 1 bedroom flat.
There have been a number of issues raised by the resident since 2017. During 2018 the landlord provided the resident with a response to a previous complaint about rats and mice within his property. Recommendations were made for pest control works to be completed as soon as possible and the landlord arranged for contractors to attend to the works. Issues arose with the contractor agreeing to do the work as they stated the property needed clearing ahead of a third visit. Throughout 2018 some repair works were completed. During 2019, the resident continued to contact the landlord with regards to pest works required. He informed it that the matter remained unresolved and he was still noticing pest activity.
The resident further reported ongoing issues throughout 2020. He raised a formal complaint with the landlord during August 2020 about all the issues he had been experiencing. This included the following:

Pest reports not being classed as an emergency and ongoing issues within his home and in the communal areas.
The landlord ‘accusing’ him of not letting operatives access the property without times or dates.
Missed appointments.
There was no handover for cases when changing housing officers.

On 7 August 2020, pest control attended to inspect the property and found pest activity. A follow up appointment was made for 7 September 2020 during which work was completed within the resident’s home to prevent pests.
Throughout October 2020, the resident contacted the landlord about ongoing issues. He requested further proofing works and reported pest activity in the communal bins.
During November 2020, the resident informed the landlord that the council would not pick up rubbish from the communal bin areas due to pest sightings. As a result the resident was storing rubbish in his home. The landlord spoke to the council and it was confirmed this case was closed on 3 December 2020 and it had started collecting rubbish from the communal areas since that date. The landlord informed the resident there was no need for him to store waste rubbish in his home. The landlord further informed the resident of this on 8 January 2021.
The landlord stated that it attempted to visit the resident’s property on 16 December 2020, however was unable to gain access. The resident disputes this, stating that it did not turn up.
During January 2021, the landlord arranged a virtual meeting with the resident to discuss the complaint and how best to move forward, however this did not take place due to the resident being unable to attend the meeting. The landlord wrote to the resident suggesting that it could temporarily decant him whilst it undertook the outstanding work in his home, however the resident advised he wished to remain in his home.
On 28 January, 10 February, and 23 February 2021 inspections by pest control took place and it was noted no pest activity was detected during these separate occasions.
The landlord proceeded to issue its stage one complaint response on 16 March 2021. It understood the resident’s complaint to be about:
1. Pest control and holes in the kitchen.
2. Heating issues.
3. Communication issues.
4. Residential waste and storage and misadvised information.
5. Loss of access to areas of the property.
6. Discrimination towards a disabled adult with learning disabilities.
7. Subject access request.
8. Financial loss.
9. Effects on the resident’s relationship and family.
The landlord reviewed the resident’s complaint history and explained some of the issues outlined by him were relating to issues prior to August 2018 and were addressed at the time, therefore it would not address these again.
With regards to the pest control and holes in the kitchen, the landlord apologised for the delay in completing the pest control works. It explained this was due to transferring to new contractors. In recognition of the delays it apologised and offered the resident £250 compensation. The landlord acknowledged the resident was unhappy with the proofing works carried out in August 2020 and explained it had since spoken to the contractors who confirmed the work had been completed.
In response to the resident’s concerns about the housing officer and lack of handover between officers, the landlord recognised the resident was unhappy with the number of changes of housing officers and lack of handover with regards to on-going issues. It acknowledged this caused delays in receiving responses and apologised to the resident. The landlord further explained it received a high number of emails from the resident which had caused confusion over what was outstanding and this, along with no access to the property, had caused delays.
The landlord explained that, on occasion, staff members move to other roles or leave the organisation, which it did not have control over. It apologised for the disruption and offered the resident £250 compensation for the delays and lapse in communication.
The landlord did not find any evidence of it mis–advising the resident with regards to the waste and storage in the communal area.
The landlord’s response noted that the resident had explained he found it hard to live in his home due to concerns relating to his phobia and he requested compensation of £12,900. The landlord apologised, but explained it had made attempts to undertake works in his home and Environmental Health had inspected the property and there was no indication that it was not habitable. The landlord also explained it had made suitable offers of a temporary decant to the resident, which were refused.
The landlord explained its discrimination policy and stated it ensured it treated the resident with respect and maintained his dignity. It apologised for how the ongoing issues had affected the resident’s relationships and family and hoped that, on resolving the complaint, these would no longer be affected.
In regards to the resident’s claims that the ongoing situation caused him financial loss, the landlord explained that the resident’s personal belongings were his responsibility and it would not be liable for the breakdown of the resident’s fridge or washing machine. It did however refer the resident to making a hardship application for support.
With regards to outstanding work for a pest control appointment, the landlord stated this could be booked in once the resident confirmed which date he would be available.
Overall, in recognition of its service failures, the landlord offered a total of £960, comprised of:
1. £50 for delays in responding to the stage one complaint.
2. £60 for missed appointments.
3. £100 as the resident tried to complain previously but this was closed in error.
4. £250 pest control delay.
5. £250 proofing works delay.
6. £250 communication.
Throughout March 2021, the resident expressed dissatisfaction with the proofing works which had been completed. On two occasions the landlord and pest control attempted to visit the property however were unable to gain access. The resident verbally requested that his complaint be escalated to stage two. Pest control attended on 31 March 2021 to inspect the estate and it was reported that there were no signs of pest activity. The resident proceeded to inform the landlord he was seeking to be decanted for works to take place in his home.
During April 2021, the resident wrote to the landlord explaining that the pest infestation may be coming from the garden of a neighbouring flat. He explained he would be rejecting any more inspections and would make a private booking instead. He further said he had seen further sightings of pests in the past two weeks in the garden. The landlord discussed decant options with the resident verbally, however these were declined.
During April 2021, the resident asked the landlord to provide him with all decant options available in London, Greater London and Brighton, it was also noted he wanted a two bedroom property. The landlord informed the resident that a decant would only be a temporary measure whilst it completed repairs to his home. It explained in such circumstances residents would be placed in a like for like property, however it would consider two bedroom property because of his children. It informed the resident this could not be guaranteed. The resident asked that, in the event the landlord was unable to decant him, he would like to do a house swap.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 13 April 2021 and requested that his complaint be escalated to stage two of its complaints process. He said he was unhappy with the landlord’s stage one complaint response and the compensation offered.
On 24 May 2021 the landlord issued its stage two complaint response. It acknowledged the complaint reply was sent outside of its timeframe and offered £50 compensation.
The landlord understood the resident’s stage two complaint to be about:
1. Neglect from landlord staff.
2. Subject access request.
3. Pest control issues in the resident’s home.
4. Failure to decant.
5. Loss of areas of property.
6. General inconvenience. Personal damage to physical and mental health and wellbeing.
7. Discrimination.
8. Effects on relationship and family.
9. Communication.
10. Pest control issues in the bin store.
11. Loss of appliances.
12. Compensation offered.
The landlord reiterated its stance from the stage one complaint response, however it also acknowledged further service failings. Additional compensation was offered, this was for the following:
1. Stage 2 response delay – £50 for service failure.
2. Subject Access Request delay – £100 for service failure and inconvenience.
3. Delays in carrying out repairs – £50 for right to repair.
The landlord ensured the resident was aware of his rights to bring the complaint to our service should he remain unhappy. However he further wrote to the landlord expressing his dissatisfaction with the complaint.
The landlord proceeded to issue the resident with a third formal response on 3 June 2021. This revised the compensation level previously offered to the following:
1. Late complaint response £50.
2. Missed appointments x2 £110.
3. Complaint service failure £125.
4. Delay in carrying out pest control works £250 + £50 for stress and inconvenience caused.
5. Delay in finishing proofing works £250 + £50 for stress and inconvenience caused.
6. Issues with communication £250.
7. Sending stage two response late £75 service failure.
8. Delay in preparing SAR £50, service failure £50, stress and inconvenience caused £75.
9. Closing the complaint logged on 10 August 2020, £50 for stress.
10. Delay in carrying out the repairs in the resident’s home, £50 for right to repair.
A total of £1,435 compensation was offered for the landlord’s service failures. However the resident was unhappy with the landlord’s findings and advised that he was seeking £29,400 compensation.

Assessment and findings

The resident has provided a chronology of issues which date back to 2017. During this time the landlord investigated a complaint during 2018 and compensated the resident. In the landlord’s later complaint response it explained that it was only considering issues after 10 August 2020.
It is understood that the resident’s complaint is about the follow-on works recommended from the previous formal response dated 2018. Whilst the scope of this investigation will not look at historic matters, consideration has been given to the length of time it has taken the landlord to address the resident’s reports of pests.
We understand the resident has expressed distress over the ongoing issues, explaining it has affected his health and wellbeing. Whilst we have noted this as context, we are unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing as claims of personal injury must, ultimately, be decided by courts of law who can consider medical evidence and make legally binding findings. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of pests.

The resident expressed upset over the delay in the landlord handling his reports concerning pests within the estate. We understand the resident has reported ongoing pest issues since 2017, and this was addressed by the landlord in 2018, when contractors were arranged to repair holes in the kitchen and address issues relating to pests within the property. The resident proceeded to chase the landlord with regards to repairs since then and requested for treatment to be done.
We recognise the distress this has caused the resident, especially as he has informed the landlord of his phobia and how this was impacting his health and relationships. It is important in circumstances where reports of pests are being made, that a landlord is actively addressing the matter and seeking a remedy.
The landlord’s pest control procedure states that it will deal with issues reported both in a resident’s flat and in the communal areas. There are no set timeframes, however the procedure states it should deal with the issue as soon as possible and treat it as a repair. The landlord is expected to inspect the issue first and if pest activity is confirmed, it is required to raise the necessary works to resolve the matter.
Throughout 2020 the resident contacted the landlord on several occasions trying to get repairs done to resolve the pest issue. The evidence shows that, following the resident’s complaint in August 2020, the landlord arranged a pest inspection for the same month and pest activity was reported.
The evidence shows that in September 2020 contractors reattended to complete repairs with regard to the pests. The length of time it took contractors to come back and repair was reasonable as it was in accordance with the landlord’s repairs timeframe which states that routine repairs should be completed within 20 working days.
The resident expressed upset over the length of time it took for this appointment to be booked. The landlord also noted access issues and missed appointments. In the Ombudsman’s view, considering the resident had been chasing matters throughout 2019 and 2020, the length of time to book an inspection was lengthy. Whilst we recognise many services were affected by the Covid pandemic during 2020 and this would have caused a delay to services, the landlord could have better communicated with the resident about timescales to ensure he was fully knowledgeable about how long it could take for it to attend to the matter. We have not seen evidence to suggest this was done. It is important that a landlord responds to reports within a timely manner to ensure the well-being of its residents and prevent any potential escalation of issues that may lead to distress or inconvenience. It is clear in this case this was not achieved, which caused distress to the resident.
Section 3.7 of the landlord’s pests procedure states it is expected to follow up after three months to ensure that the problem has been dealt with. In this instance the resident claims that, after the landlord attended to the matter, it failed to follow up. The resident states that Environmental Health conducted its second investigation of his property and found activity of pests throughout his living area and the communal area. However we have not seen a copy of this report. We can see the landlord booked a pest control appointment for 1 December 2020, however it failed to attend the appointment. A further appointment was booked in regard to this.
We have reviewed the inspection reports dated 28 January 2021, 10 February 2021 and 23 February 2021. In all these reports the technician confirmed that external control points were inspected and there were no visuals signs of bait consumption or droppings. It stated the landlord would continue to monitor. The landlord also arranged a further inspection on 31 March 2021 and again no pest activity was detected. It was appropriate for the landlord to arrange these inspections, given the resident’s concerns. Since the reports showed no signs of pests, no further action was deemed necessary by the landlord, stating it would continue to monitor.
We understand the resident said he had been given misinformation with regards to the bins and felt ‘misguided’. The evidence shows the landlord informed the resident on 8 January 2021 that there were no pests in the communal bins and to ignore the notice from the council which had previously written stating they would not collect bins for safety reasons. Prior to this, the landlord appropriately communicated with the council and confirmed collection of bins had resumed during December 2020. Since the landlord’s information was accurate and no evidence indicates otherwise, there was no service failure by the landlord.
We recognise the resident states he was storing food waste in his living area due to not being able to store it in the communal bins following the notice from the council. Whilst we recognise the impact this would have had on the resident, these actions were not due to the advice of the landlord. Furthermore, and in accordance with Section B(11) of the tenancy agreement, the resident agrees to ensure all refuse and household waste is put into appropriate bin bags, chutes or containers used for the purpose of refuse. While we sympathise with the resident’s situation, the responsibility for the proper disposal of waste as per the tenancy agreement falls on the resident, not the landlord. Therefore there was no service failure by the landlord.
The resident contacted the landlord several times throughout 2020 about having proofing done to holes and gaps around the property to prevent pests. The evidence shows these works were completed, however it is clear there were prolonged delays in the landlord addressing the resident’s concerns after first being made aware of this.
We can see that. during March 2021, the resident expressed concerns over the proofing works completed, explaining he was unhappy with the level of proofing. However the landlord stated the works completed by its contractors were adequate and are fit for purpose. Considering there had been no further pest activity reported by inspectors, we find the landlord’s response to be appropriate because the landlord was satisfied with the works and no further activity had been identified.
Overall, with respect to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of pests, it acknowledged service failure with delays in carrying out pest control works and proofing alongside communication issues.
The landlord’s compensation policy states, where its residents have experienced distress and inconvenience following a service failure, it can make a discretionary payment of up to £250. This is considered where there is high impact and service failures over an extended period of time have caused distress to the resident. The landlord compensated the resident £300 for delays attending to pests, £300 delays in finishing proofing, and £250 for communication issues.
In the Ombudsman’s view it was appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge its service failures and compensate the resident. This showed a level of accountability and demonstrated a effort to put things right. We find the level of compensation to be in line with its guidelines and in the region of what we may have awarded in such circumstances. Whilst we recognise the resident wanted a substantially higher level of compensation, the Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord’s offer was a reasonable amount of redress and proportionate to the failings identified.
The resident expressed upset about missed appointments. Section 6 of the compensation policy states where a repair is missed by a contractor and this is through no fault of the resident, it will compensate £30 for missed appointments. In this instance we have seen that appointments were missed and the landlord proceeded to offer the resident £60 compensation, then increased this offer to £110. We find the amount to be reasonable, as the landlord appropriately acknowledged its failure, apologised and compensated in line with its guidelines. It also ensured follow up appointments were booked when notified.
We understand the resident is seeking to be compensated for rent amounts and that he alleges he suffered from loss of access to his property due to his phobia and the ongoing pest issues, stating that he was unable to use his bedroom, living room, bathroom, kitchen and communal areas without fear. Whilst we recognise the resident’s phobia, we have seen no evidence to suggest his property was uninhabitable. Whilst we empathise with the resident’s discomfort, there is no requirement for the landlord to offer a rent refund as the property was not assessed as being uninhabitable.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s decant request

In accordance with the landlord’s policy, a planned decant is usually considered to enable works to be undertaken, with the intention of the resident returning to the property on completion. Offers of alternative accommodation will be of the same size as the resident’s permanent accommodation. In this instance the resident resided in a 1 bedroom property, however the landlord did take his request for a 2 bedroom property into consideration but could not guarantee this.
The resident requested to be decanted to another property whilst repairs were undertaken. Following this request, during January 2021 the evidence shows that the landlord made an offer to the resident, however he declined this offer stating that he did not see the need to decant his property at that time. The landlord noted at the time the resident lived alone in his property so the offer was suitable for him.
The evidence shows that during March 2021, the resident proceeded to request a decant, and the landlord made a further two offers to him during a telephone conversation on 1 April 2021, however these were refused based on location.
In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord appropriately addressed the resident’s request to be decanted by offering three alternative properties. These offers were also in accordance with its decant policy. Overall we have seen no evidence to suggest service failure with regards to decanting the resident. We understand the resident made the landlord aware of his preferences, which the landlord considered, however the accommodation options offered were based on the availability and suitability at the time.

The landlord’s communication during staff handover

The resident expressed upset over the landlord’s communication and the number of changes in housing officer, expressing that there was a lack of handover which left him ‘frustrated’. The landlord acknowledged this and recognised there had been numerous delays in responding to the resident. It apologised for the delays and lapse in communication and compensated him in recognition of this.
It is important that landlords ensure a smooth and well-organised handover when employees leave or change roles within the organisation to ensure the continuity of service and minimise disruption for its residents. Doing so prevents important tasks and residents’ enquiries from “falling through the cracks” or facing unnecessary delays. By keeping residents updated during the transition, this can help to alleviate uncertainty, distress and inconvenience.
In this instance, it is evident there was service failure, so it was appropriate for the landlord to consider its compensation policy. The landlord offered the resident £250 which we find to be reasonable and was in accordance with its guidelines which state this is the maximum offered in scenarios where there has been a serious failure in service delivery over a period of time which has caused a significant level of distress and in convenience to the resident. The Ombudsman considers the landlord’s offer of compensation was reasonable redress for the failings identified.

The landlord’s complaint handling

Section 5 of the Housing Ombudsman’s complaint handling code sets out what is expected of landlords when responding to residents’ complaints. It explains that a two-stage complaint procedure is ideal. In this instance the landlord has two complaint stages, however it provided the resident with three formal responses. It is noted however that the gap between the second and third responses was short, and that the third response was sent following further submissions from the resident. Taken all together therefore the Ombudsman does not consider that there was any significant adverse impact caused to the resident by the landlord sending a further response.
The landlord’s complaints policy states it aims to provide a full response within 10 working days. For stage 2 it aims to provide a response within 20 working days.
The evidence shows the resident attempted to raise a complaint during August 2020, however this was closed in error by the landlord. The landlord also failed to respond to the resident within the expected time frames. It is clear that there were delays in responding to the resident’s complaint and it did not follow the correct internal complaint procedure. Therefore it was appropriate for the landlord to consider compensation for its failure.
The landlord’s compensation policy offers:

Up to £50, where service standards have not been met and the issue has taken slightly longer than expected causing some inconvenience to the resident.
Up to £125 where it has failed to meet service standards and this failure has caused inconvenience and distress that has not been manageable for the resident.

The landlord offered £50 for closing the complaint in error, £50 for stage one response delays, £75 for stage two response delays and £125 for its complaint handling failure. Overall, the Ombudsman considers this to be a reasonable offer of redress, which was proportionate to the failings identified.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress offered by the landlord in respect of the complaint about its handling of the resident’s reports of pests and associated requests for work.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s temporary decant request.
In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress offered by the landlord in respect of the complaint about its communication during handovers between staff.
In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress offered by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling failings.

Reasons

There were service failures in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of pests within the estate. However the landlord appropriately addressed this by ensuring works were completed, regular inspections were conducted, and it made an offer of compensation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, was reasonable redress in the circumstances.
The landlord made reasonable offers of decant properties to the resident and considered the possibility of a bigger property in response to the resident’s request.
The landlord appropriately apologised to the resident and compensated him fairly for its handlings of the resident’s complaint and concerns during handovers between staff.
There were several service failures when dealing with the resident’s complaint. However the landlord apologised, acknowledged this and provided a reasonable amount of compensation, which in the Ombudsman’s opinion was reasonable redress.

Orders and recommendations

Recommendations

If it has not done so already, the landlord should pay its offer of £1435 compensation to the resident within four weeks of the date of this letter.
The landlord to ensure it promptly address repair requests in line with its policies. In the event it is unable to attend to a matter within the expected timeframe, it should update its residents, to manage expectations and provide an approximate date on when it aims to have the issues resolved.
We note the resident has continued to report issues and we are therefore recommending that the landlord should arrange a further inspection to ensure the pest issue has not returned and to give assurance to the resident that his concerns have been addressed.