Notting Hill Genesis (202124535)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202124535

Notting Hill Genesis

30 March 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

1. The complaint concerns:
   1. The information provided by the landlord relating to the resident’s request to be rehoused.
   2. The delay in the payment of compensation.

Background

2. The resident was an assured tenant of the landlord, which is a housing association. The property is a flat in a communal building. The resident surrendered the tenancy of the property in July 2021.
3. On 21 February 2021, the resident wrote to the landlord and requested to raise a formal complaint. He described the elements of his complaint as:
   1. He had been attempting since June 2019 to be rehoused by the landlord, but his requests were ignored.
   2. He spoke to a staff member regarding his rehousing options in November 2021 and completed an application to be rehoused under the household members scheme in December 2021.
   3. His application was rejected on the grounds that he was not eligible for the scheme.
   4. As a resolution to his complaint, the resident requested to be rehoused.
4. In its complaint responses, the landlord:
   1. Apologised for the delays the resident experienced during the complaints process. It explained that the other joint tenant in the household raised a complaint at the same time as the resident and while this was picked up, the resident’s complaint was not. It noted that it incorrectly sent a draft version of the stage one complaint response on 23 April 2021, then sent the full response on 5 May 2021. It also noted that following an escalation request by the resident, it should have provided him with a stage two complaint response by 3 June 2021, but it was not sent until 7 July 2021.
   2. Explained that its household members scheme was for occupants of a household who did not hold a tenancy, and as the resident was a joint tenant of the property this scheme was not available to him. The landlord apologised for the incorrect information it gave to the resident and the inconvenience caused to him by applying for a scheme he was ineligible for.
   3. Confirmed that as the resident was a joint tenant, he could only be rehoused by the landlord as a joint tenant with his household and not as a sole tenant. It noted that it had provided information to the resident on alternative rehousing options available to him from the local authority and outside agencies.
   4. Offered £300 compensation for its service failures, which it broke down as £100 for the incorrect information it provided about the household members scheme and £200 for the delays the resident experienced during the complaints process.
5. In referring the case to this Service, the resident described the outstanding issues of the complaint as the conflicting advice he received from the landlord about his rehousing options and that he had yet to receive the compensation offered by the landlord. The resident explained that he had made several requests between October 2021 and February 2022 to receive the compensation, but the landlord had refused to pay.

Assessment and findings

Relevant policies and procedures

6. The landlord’s household members scheme describes its aims as “to relieve overcrowding by: Rehousing an adult member of the household into a one bedroom or bed-sit property: Incentivising the release of family sized properties by offering separate smaller properties (one of which is a one bedroom) to the tenancy holder(s) and any adult household members”.
7. Section 2.0 of the scheme explains that in order to be eligible, the applicant must:
   1. “Be 18 or over.
   2. Either be a single person or a childless couple.
   3. Be part of a household that is either overcrowded or under-occupied and the tenant will separately transfer to a smaller home.
   4. Have been living at the property for the last 12 months.
   5. Live in a household that has no outstanding debts.”
8. The landlord operates a two-stage complaints process. When a complaint is received, the landlord aims to provide a response at stage one within ten working days. If the complainant is dissatisfied with the response, they can request an escalation of the complaint to the next stage. The landlord will then undertake a review of the complaint and provide a stage two response within 20 working days. This will be the landlord’s final response to the complaint.
9. The landlord’s compensation policy states that it will consider offering a financial payment “to make amends or to recognise distress or inconvenience caused because of a service failure”. The compensation policy also provides recommended payment guidance. This categorises its levels of payment as “low impact” (up to £50), “medium impact” (up to £125) and “high impact” (up to £250).
10. Medium impact service failure is defined by the landlord as “the service has markedly failed to meet service standards and this failure has caused inconvenience and distress that has not been manageable for the resident” and high impact is defined as “a serious failure in service delivery over a period of time which has caused a significant level of distress and inconvenience to the resident”.

The information provided by the landlord relating to the resident’s request to be rehoused

11. In line with section 2.0 of the household members scheme detailed above, the resident would not be eligible to make an application to be rehoused as part of the scheme. This is because the resident was not a single person or part of a childless couple, and because he was seeking to be rehoused as a sole tenant rather than part of his existing joint tenancy. There was a breakdown of communication between the landlord and the resident as the landlord incorrectly informed the resident that he was eligible for the scheme. This caused clear delay and inconvenience to the resident as he applied to be rehoused as part of the scheme rather than pursuing a rehousing option that he was eligible for.
12. Therefore, it was appropriate for the landlord to apologise, offer compensation for its service failures and explain what steps it had taken to improve its service. This position is in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles of: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes. The landlord acted fairly in acknowledging its mistakes and apologising to the resident. It looked to put things right by offering £300 compensation and providing information to the resident on what rehousing options were available to him. It looked to learn from its mistakes by reviewing how it had handled the resident’s complaint and rehousing request.  In its stage two complaint response it informed the resident that it had put new measures in place to ensure its housing officers undertook retraining. It also made changes to the household members scheme application form so that the eligibility requirements were listed on the form. The landlord also explained that it had undertaken a review of its complaint handling performance and given individual training to staff members where necessary.
13. The compensation offer by the landlord was calculated in line with its policy detailed above. It offered £100 at the medium impact level of its payment guidance for the incorrect information it providing to the resident relating to the household members scheme, and £200 at the high impact level for the delays in the complaint process. The landlord sent the stage one response 41 working days outside of its published target time of ten working days and it sent the stage two response 24 working days outside of its published target time of 20 working days.
14. The landlord’s total compensation offer of £300 is broadly in line with the Ombudsman’s own remedies guidance, which is available on our website, and which recommends a payment of £100 to £600 in cases of considerable service failure or maladministration. This may include distress and inconvenience, time and trouble, loss of confidence, and delays in getting matters resolved. A payment of £300 by the landlord that recognised the inconvenience and delay caused to the resident by providing him with incorrect information about the household members scheme, and the additional time and trouble caused to the resident in not meeting its published timescales during the complaint process was reasonable in the circumstances. The measures taken by the landlord to redress what went wrong were proportionate to the impact that its failures had on the resident.

The delay in the payment of compensation

15. On 11 October 2021, the resident wrote to the landlord and enquired what information he needed to provide in order for the landlord to process the compensation payment. The landlord replied on the same day and informed him that it would require a copy of a bank statement that showed his name, address, account number and sort code. The resident provided a copy of a bank statement to the landlord on 8 December 2021.
16. The resident wrote again to the landlord on 24 January 2022 and informed it he had yet to receive the compensation payment. The landlord replied on the same day and explained that the payment was declined as the address provided by the resident was his address when he was a tenant of the landlord. The landlord noted that he had surrendered this tenancy in July 2021 and was no longer living in that property. The landlord explained that it would require a bank statement with his current address in order to process the payment.
17. The landlord’s compensation policy does not give any information on how it will process a payment, but does note that “we will always make an offer of compensation in writing, confirming that the offer is made without prejudice and ask the resident to confirm in writing that they accept the amount of compensation awarded”. When the resident confirmed in writing that he had accepted the compensation offer, the landlord informed him what information it would need to process a payment. The resident did not provide this information as the address provided was from his former.
18. Therefore, there is no evidence of service failure as the landlord has clearly stated if would pay the compensation upon receipt of the required information and, as yet, this information has not been provided. However, as the landlord has no procedures in either its compensation or complaints policy that sets out how compensation payments are made, it would be reasonable for the landlord to consider an alternative method of payment if the resident is unable to provide the required document to allow a direct payment to his bank account. For example, the landlord may be able to issue a cheque to the resident, use of postal orders or an authorised third party could receive the compensation on the resident’s behalf.

Determination

19. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord made an offer of redress to the resident in respect of the information it provided relating to the resident’s request to be rehoused which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves this element of the complaint.
20. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of the delay in the payment of compensation.

Recommendations

21. As the finding of reasonable redress was based on the landlord’s offer of £300 compensation, it is recommended that the landlord now pay this to the resident, if it has not done so already.
22. It is further recommended that, if the resident continues to be unable to provide the requested information to allow compensation to paid directly into his bank account, that the landlord consider alternative methods of payment such as issuing a cheque, postal order or paying the compensation to an authorised third party.