Notting Hill Genesis (NHG) (202234815)

A blue and grey text

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202234815

Notting Hill Genesis (NHG)

23 May 2024

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to:
1. The resident’s concerns about the level of increase in service charges.
2. The resident’s request for information about a service charge increase.
3. The resident’s request for a management pack.
4. The resident’s complaint.

Jurisdiction

What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to this service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
An element of the resident’s complaint to the landlord related to the level of the service charge increases at the property. The landlord sent an email to the resident on 23 March 2023 which explained that it would address the enquiry about its calculation of the level of service charges matter outside of its complaints procedure. It also explained this was “as challenges against service charge increases do not go through the complaints process as they sit outside of the jurisdiction of the Housing Ombudsman”.
Paragraph 42(d) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, concern the level of rent or service charge or the amount of the rent or service charge increase.
Consequently the resident’s complaint about the level of increase in service charges is outside of the jurisdiction of this Service. If the resident wishes to challenge the amount of their service charge, the process that was undertaken to calculate the increase, and/or seek recovery, they may do so by making an application to the First Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) (FTT).
Whilst this Service is unable to assess the level of the service charge increase it will consider whether landlord responded to the resident in line with its policies and procedures under the circumstances. This is therefore raised as a separate complaint heading.

Background

The resident lives in a 3-bedroom house that is managed by a housing association. The resident occupies the property under a lease agreement dated April 2003 which transferred to her on 31 March 2023.
The landlord does not record any vulnerabilities for the resident.
In its complaint responses the landlord states that it is required to provide a management pack within 10 working days of receipt of payment and a request for the pack.

Relevant policies and procedures

The landlord’s service charge policy says that it will provide clear and accurate service charge budgets for residents. It will also provide details on how the charges were calculated and what services they represent. It also says that any complaints about the outcomes of a service charge query, or an issue with customer service, service quality or delivery, or timescales will be dealt with under its complaint policy.
The landlord’s complaint procedure says it will acknowledge a complaint within 2 working days and provide a written response to a stage 1 complaint within 10 working days and a stage 2 complaint within 20 working days.
The landlord’s compensation and goodwill gestures policy says:
1. It will consider financial compensation where it has failed to follow its published policies or there have been unreasonable delays against its service standards.
2. It may offer a discretionary goodwill gesture to acknowledge that there has been a service failure.
3. Where distress or inconvenience is experienced following a service failure the landlord can make a discretionary payment of up to £250.
Paragraph 4.1 of the Housing Ombudsman complaint handling code (the ‘Code’) says a complaint should be acknowledged and logged within 5 days of receipt. Paragraph 5.6 says landlords must address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions, referencing the relevant policy, law, and good practice where appropriate. Paragraph 5.14 of the Code says if an extension beyond 10 working days is required to enable the landlord to respond to the complaint fully, this should be agreed by both parties.

Summary of events

The landlord issued a notice of charge letter to the resident on 18 February 2022. The letter outlined the monthly rent and service charge costs for the approaching financial year (2022-23).
The landlord issued an annual service charge statement to the resident on 31 March 2022. The letter outlined the monthly rent and service charge costs for the 2020-21 financial year. The landlord also sent the resident a letter about a surplus that it intended to apply to the service charge account in April 2022.
The resident raised a enquiries with the landlord about a 300% increase in the service charges and the landlord’s 30-year stock condition plan on 6 April 2022. The resident chased the landlord for a response to the service charge enquiries she had made 10 times between April 2022 and December 2022.
The resident sent an email to the landlord on 6 December 2022 asking for a copy of the building insurance, a copy of the 2019-20 service charge account, and information about how long it would take to provide a management pack. The landlord replied to the resident later the same day to explain that a management pack costs £150 and that it would be provided within 10 days of its receipt of payment. The landlord attached the service charge information that had been requested to its email.
The resident emailed the landlord on 13 December 2022 to confirm she had made the management pack payment the same day. She emailed the landlord on 15 and 21 December 2022 to ask if it had received her payment.
The landlord emailed the resident on 22 December 2022 to confirm that it had received the management pack payment and would start compiling the pack on 10 January 2023 following a period of annual leave. The resident replied to the landlord later the same day asking for the matter to be reassigned to meet its 10-day policy timescale. The landlord replied to the resident the next day to say that a manager would return to work on 3 January 2023 and would assist with the matter from that date.
The resident emailed the landlord on 4 January 2023 to request an update on the status of the management pack. The resident phoned the landlord about the same matter the next day and on several occasions subsequently on undisclosed dates and times. The resident left messages about the matter as she could not make contact with the relevant manager.
The landlord emailed the resident on 10 January 2023 to say that the management pack would be compiled because a named member of staff had returned to work.
The named member of staff emailed the resident on 13 January 2023 to apologise for the delay in issuing the management pack which had been due to his inexperience. He said that he would complete the management pack by 16 January 2023. The resident emailed the relevant manager later the same day to express her disappointment that the pack had not been ready on that day as she had previously been assured.
The resident emailed the landlord on 16 January 2023 to say that the landlord had “dodged” her emails and phone calls which was not helpful. The landlord emailed the management pack to the resident later the same day. The resident sent a further email to the landlord later that evening asking for further information about the fire risk assessment contained in the management pack.
The resident sent a stage 1 complaint email to the landlord on 5 March 2023 about the concerns she said she had previously raised, and which were interlinked. The resident restated her specific service charge queries and provided detailed financial sums and included the percentages she had reached in her calculations. She also attached a timeline of communication she had held with the landlord since she had requested service charge information in April 2022. The resident said:
1. The service she had received from the landlord was unsatisfactory and unacceptable.
2. The sale of her property was critically dependant on the information she had requested.
3. Although a named staff member had attempted to chase a resolution to her enquiry she had still not received a response 3 months later.
4. The delays she had experienced in receiving a management pack, which she recognised had been due to the inexperience of a staff member, had caused her unnecessary stress, time, and trouble. Additional requests for information had also been delayed.
5. She had attempted to escalate her concerns about the responses she had received to a named manager but had not received the support she had expected.
6. She wanted the landlord to call her back to discuss the matters the next day and agree a way forward.
The landlord sent an email to the resident on 8 March 2023 to say that it was sorry that the sale of her property had been a difficult experience and that it had forwarded her message to its resales and legal manager. The resident replied to the landlord later the same day to say that her concerns and complaints were serious and although the landlord was endeavouring to resolve this quickly to ensure the sale of her property speed should not deflect from the wider issues she had raised.
The landlord emailed the resident on 9 March 2023 to provide a full response to her service charge enquiries. The landlord said that it would provide a further complaint response on 20 March 2023 to address the customer service it had provided when handling her enquiries.
The resident emailed the landlord on 10 March 2023 to raise further queries about her service charges in response to the information the landlord had provided the previous day. The resident said that the email would concentrate on the service charge matters rather than the complaint about the customer service that it had provided when supplying the information.
The resident sent an email to the landlord on 12 March 2023 referring to information she had requested on 6 April 2022, and which had been provided on 8 March 2023. The resident said that further conversations about the information were required which related to the handling and issuing of service charge information and the landlord’s regulatory obligations.
The resident sent an email to the landlord on 16 March 2023 which set out her concerns about the landlord’s handling of her service charge enquiries and the service she had received from the landlord. The resident said that she expected the landlord to extrapolate its previous responses to 3 solicitor’s requests onto letter-headed paper so that she could forward this to her buyer’s solicitor via her own solicitor. She requested the letter by the end of the day. The resident sent a further email to the landlord on the same day which said that she was “at a loss as to what was going on”. The resident said that she had not received an acknowledgement of an email she had sent about her serious concerns about the complaints she had raised.
The landlord emailed the resident on 16 March 2023 to say that it considered it had responded to the service charge queries she had raised so that she could respond to her buyer. The landlord apologised that it had not acknowledged an email she had sent and had not contacted the resident to discuss her concerns. The landlord explained that it had separated her complaint into the service charge enquiry and the delivery of customer service.
The resident emailed the landlord on 17 March 2023 setting out that she did not consider the landlord’s previous responses dated 10 and 12 March 2023 to have appropriately addressed her enquiry about the level of service charges. She raised concerns about the time it had taken for the landlord to respond to her enquiries and asked it to take a hold of the situation and assign a senior member of staff to look into the matters.
The landlord sent a stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 21 March 2023. The landlord said the response would address the customer service and delays in responding to her enquiries and that her specific service charge enquiries would be handled separately. The landlord:
1. Upheld the resident’s complaint about the time it had taken to provide a response to her service charge enquiries despite the resident chasing a response a minimum of 10 times between April and December 2022. It explained that the housing officer had been required to gather information from its service charge team and more should have been done to proactively obtain the requested information.
2. Recognised that it did not provide any further updates between January 2023 and March 2023 and apologised for the frustration and inconvenience its poor communication and delays had caused. It said that it had changed its procedures to improve the relationships between internal teams.
3. Upheld the resident’s complaint about its delay in issuing a management pack outside of its published 10-day timescale. The landlord explained that this was due to an inexperienced member of staff but said that he should have been supported to ensure the request was met within the published timeframes. It said that it had changed its processes to ensure managers were aware and could monitor when management packs were requested.
4. Acknowledged that there had been a service failure in providing a response to the resident when she had escalated the matter to a named member of staff. It said that the staff member should have explained that he was trying to assist the service charge team to resolve her enquiry prior to issuing a response so as to manage her expectations.
5. Offered the resident £150 as compensation for inconvenience caused by its communication failings and £30 for not meeting its 10-day timescales for issuing a management pack.
6. Explained that the resident could escalate the matter to stage 2 if she remained unhappy with the response.
The landlord emailed a response to the resident’s service charge enquiries to her on 22 March 2023.
The resident sent a stage 2 complaint to the landlord on 22 March 2023. The resident said:
1. The complaint was about the customer service and delays in receiving responses to her queries.
2. It made no sense for housing officers to deal with leaseholder matters and that they are placed in an impossible situation without support.
3. The landlord should incorporate leasehold properties back into the homeownership department.
4. She acknowledged that the landlord would ensure managers were aware when management packs were requested, but asked why support was not provided when she had reported her concerns to a manager.
5. She rejected the landlord’s statements about the investigations it had undertaken into a manager’s handling of her escalation requests.
6. She rejected the landlord’s offers of compensation which she said were derisory and did not adequately compensate for the upset and frustration the matters had caused.
The landlord sent a letter to the resident on 23 March 2023 to confirm that her complaint had been escalated to stage 2 of the complaint procedure and that it would provide a response by 20 April 2023.
The landlord phoned the resident on 24 March 2023 to discuss her stage 2 complaint.
The resident emailed the landlord on 30 March 2023 to say that she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s responses which she considered did not adequately address the matters she had raised. The resident asked further questions about the service charge calculation processes, service charge costs, cyclical maintenance programmes, and the stock condition survey and reserve fund processes.
The landlord emailed the resident on 5 April 2023 and said that it believed it had sufficiently addressed all of the points she had raised within stage 1 and stage 2 of its complaints process. The landlord referred the resident to this Service if she wished to escalate her complaint further.
The landlord sent a stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 20 April 2023. The landlord said:
1. It had reviewed the stage 1 complaint response and met with staff members to investigate the complaint further.
2. It agreed with the stage 1 complaint response about its communication and delays in issuing responses to the resident. It further upheld this aspect of the complaint and restated that it had introduced new processes to improve communication between teams. It increased the offer of compensation for its communication failings to £250.
3. It recognised that its delay in issuing a management pack was a service failure as it had taken 19 working days to issue the pack instead of 10 working days. It further upheld the complaint and increased the compensation for this matter to £125 in line with a medium impact award.
4. There had been a lack of people management when reviewing the complaint and that the resident should not have had to continually escalate her queries. It also said that the manager she had contacted should have acknowledged her emails within a reasonable timeframe. It upheld this aspect of the resident’s complaint.
5. That it had taken steps to put right matters and had learned lessons which it would communicate to managers across all regions.
6. That it was its final response and signposted the resident to this Service if she remained dissatisfied with the response.

Events that took place after completion of the complaint procedure.

The resident appointed a representative to progress matters with this Service on her behalf on 6 April 2023 due to her caring requirements.
This Service wrote to the resident on 24 August 2023 in response to her expressed dissatisfaction with the overall increase of the service charge. The letter explained that this Service would not consider complaints concerning the level of rent or service charge, or the amount of a rent or service charge increase but that it may consider the landlord’s handling of the administration of her service charge enquires and how it had handled the complaint.
The resident’s representative sent an email to this Service on 14 September 2023 that said that the landlord had addressed the complaint about the customer service and the management pack delays at stage 2 and that this matter was closed following receipt of compensation. It set out that the landlord’s response to the complaint about the level of the service charge increase was outstanding.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for information about a service charge increase.

The resident raised service charge enquiries with the landlord in April 2022. There is no evidence that the landlord acknowledged her enquiries, sought to make contact with her to address the matters, or provided a response prior to her raising a complaint in March 2023. This was inappropriate and not in keeping with the landlord’s service charge policy which said that it would provide clear and accurate service charge budgets for residents and provide details on how the charges were calculated and the services they represented.
The landlord issued a response to the resident’s service charge enquiries in March 2023, 11 months after she had raised her enquiry. This was an unreasonable amount of time for her to have waited to receive a response which was only achieved after she had submitted a complaint to the landlord about the matter. This caused time, trouble, and inconvenience to the resident in pursuing a response which could have been avoided.
In its stage 1 and stage 2 complaint responses the landlord recognised that the resident had chased a response a minimum of 10 times between April 2022 and December 2022. The landlord acknowledged its own communication service failures, apologised to the resident, and offered her a final compensation award of £250. It also set out that it had changed its processes to improve internal communication.
When there are acknowledged failings by a landlord, as is the case here, the Ombudsman will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord had put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress (an apology, compensation, changes to internal processes) was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles; be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
The landlord’s initial offer of compensation was £150 which it increased to £250 in its final complaint response. It was appropriate for the landlord to recognise that its communication failings had caused a high level of time, trouble, and inconvenience to resident. While the amount of £250 was the maximum amount of compensation set out in its compensation policy, this amount did not reflect the impact of the significant delay on the resident and the time and trouble she incurred in having to repeatedly chase the landlord for its response. The Ombudsman’s approach to compensation is set out in our Remedies Guidance published on our website. Where the Ombudsman has found considerable service failure or maladministration by the landlord, but there may be no permanent impact on the complainant it can award a payment of between £250 and £700. Whilst the landlord’s compensation is within this range, it is the view of this Service that this amount was not proportionate to the distress and inconvenience, time and trouble incurred by the resident as a result of the landlord’s significant delay. A further award of compensation is therefore awarded below.
Consequently and taking all matters into account this Service finds maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for information about a service charge increase.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a management pack.

The resident requested a management pack from the landlord and made the required payment on 13 December 2022. The resident did not receive an acknowledgement from the landlord until 22 December 2022 despite making contact with the landlord again on 2 further occasions. It was unreasonable for the resident to have had to chase the landlord to respond to her request.
On 22 December 2022 the landlord advised the resident that it would not compile the management pack until 10 January 2023 after a period of annual leave. This was an inappropriate approach for the landlord to have taken which showed no regard for its 10-day turnaround timescales. This caused distress and inconvenience to the resident and resulted in her unsuccessfully escalating the matter to a manager for the matter to be reassigned.
The resident sought advice about the progress of the management pack on 4 January 2023 but did not receive an update from the landlord until the staff member had returned from annual leave on 10 January 2023. It was unreasonable for the landlord to have waited until the staff member had returned from annual leave to compile the pack, given that the resident had initially requested and paid for the pack on 13 December 2022 and requested for the matter to be reassigned to meet its 10-day published timescale.
The landlord reviewed its handling of the management pack request in its complaint responses, recognised its failings, and upheld the complaint. The landlord explained that the delays had been due to the inexperience of the staff member handling the enquiry and that a change to its procedures had taken place as a result of the complaint. However the landlord did not acknowledge further failings in not responding to the resident’s enquiries about the matter, not providing support to the staff member handling the enquiry or reassigning the matter to another staff member. This caused time and trouble to the resident and delayed the issuing of the management pack until 9 working days later that the published timescales.
The landlord offered the resident an award of £30 as compensation in its stage 1 complaint response but recognised that this was low in its stage 2 complaint response and increased the award to £125. It was appropriate for the landlord to have reconsidered its award of compensation in keeping with dispute resolution principles to be fair and put things right. The final compensation award was in keeping with the medium level of compensation under the landlord’s compensation policy which was proportionate to the inconvenience the matter had caused to the resident.. Furthermore, the landlord demonstrated that it had taken learning from the complaint which it would communicate to managers across all regions.
Taking all matters into consideration this Service finds reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a management pack.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaints

There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaints as the landlord:
1. Did not raise a complaint about her concerns about the management of her service charge enquiries, its communication, and the delays in issuing a management pack when she had raised these with a manager.
2. Did not acknowledge the resident’s stage 1 complaint within 2 working days detailing its understanding of the complaint, the complaint reference number, and a response timescale.
3. Issued its response to the resident’s stage 1 complaint of 5 March 2023 on 21 March 2023, 2 working days later that its policy target timescale.
The landlord outlined that it would handle the resident’s complaint about the customer service and delays in providing information separately to her enquiry about the level of the service charge. The landlord’s service charge policy sets out that it is entitled to do so and therefore this was a reasonable approach for it to have taken. However the landlord explained that it had taken this approach in recognition that this Service does not have jurisdiction for assessing the level of service charges. Whilst this is outlined in the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the landlord’s justification for choosing to separate the resident’s complaint would have been more appropriately explained with reference to its own policy which clearly explains how it approaches service charge complaints.
The landlord reviewed its handling of the resident’s complaint in it is final complaint response and recognised that it should have acknowledged her emails within a reasonable time frame, and explained the steps it was taking to resolve her complaint. Furthermore the landlord indicated that it had shared this learning with management staff across all regions. It was appropriate for the landlord to have recognised its own failings and shared the lessons it had learned with the resident in its complaint response, thereby evidencing that it had sought to learn from the complaint, put matters right, and be fair. However the landlord failed to provide an award of compensation for its complaint handling failings and the time and trouble that had been caused to the resident in pursuing a response to her enquiries. An award of compensation it therefore ordered below.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for information about a service charge increase.
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was reasonable redress in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a management pack.
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaints.

Reasons

The landlord failed to provide a response to the resident’s service charge enquiries within a reasonable timeframe. This resulted in the resident waiting for 11 months to receive a response to her enquires.
The landlord failed to comply with its 10-day published timescale for issuing a management pack. However, the landlord investigated its handling of the request, and offered a proportionate amount of compensation for its failings.
The landlord failed to comply with its own complaints policy and the Code during its handling of the resident’s complaints. The landlord investigated and recognised its own complaint handling failings but failed to offer a reasonable amount of compensation for the detriment this caused to the resident.

Orders and recommendations

The landlord is ordered to apologise to the resident for its failings in responding to the resident’s request for information about service charges. This is to be provided in writing within 4 weeks of the date of this report.
Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to pay the resident a total of £550 in compensation made up as follows:
1. £375 previously offered if this has not already been paid.
2. £100 for time, trouble, and inconvenience associated with the pursuit of a response to her service charge enquiries.
3. £75 for its complaint handling failings.

The compensation is to be paid direct to the resident and not offset against any money that the resident may owe the landlord.