Notting Hill Genesis (NHG) (202004764)

A blue and grey text

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202004764

Notting Hill Genesis (NHG)

17 November 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 complaint is about the landlord’s response to:
1. The resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) caused by her neighbours.
2. The resident’s reports about the conduct of the housing officer.
3. The resident’s request to be rehoused.
This report also looks at the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaints and its record keeping practices.

Background

The resident lives in a one bedroom, first floor flat with a balcony in a property that is owned and managed by the landlord. The property was let under an assured tenancy agreement in 2012.
The landlord has no recorded vulnerabilities for the resident but has noted that the resident has mental health issues.
The landlord administers access to a local authority choice based letting rehousing scheme via an online database called Locata. Locata operates using the local authority’s banding system which categorises applicants based upon their personal circumstances and housing need. Rehousing applicants bid on advertised properties and are prioritised based upon their position on the rehousing list.
The landlord operates its own management moves rehousing scheme which provides it with the opportunity to make offers of relet homes to residents within its own housing stock, where it considers a rehousing need is present.

Relevant policies and procedures

The landlord’s ASB policy says:
1. It is committed to tackling ASB in a responsive, proportionate, and robust manner.
2. On receiving a report of ASB, it contacts the complainant within one working day and offers to visit them within 5 working days. The initial response is to investigate and monitor any risk. If a crime has been committed, it will advise the complainant to contact the police.
3. In determining the seriousness of the ASB and what the proportionate action for resolving it will be, it will consider the nature of the ASB, the frequency of incidents and the impact that the behaviour is having on the complainant and the wider community.
4. It adopts a multi-agency approach to preventing and tackling ASB and offers the police and the local authority support when they are able to take action.
The landlord’s transfer policy says:
1. Where the safety and wellbeing of a resident and/or a member of their household is at risk, the Housing Officer can consider them for a management transfer.
2. The Housing Officer should inform the resident that they will have 6 months to bid for a property and that, in the meantime, the landlord will look for a suitable property and try to make a direct offer.
The landlord’s website says that residents can benefit from its partnerships with local support agencies who can help residents with many areas of their lives including with mental health. The web site sets out details about how residents can contact these services.
The landlord’s complaint procedure says it will acknowledge a complaint within 2 working days and provide a written response to a stage 1complaint within 10 working days and a stage 2 complaint within 20 working days. The policy also says that complaints received about issues that are over 6 months old and that have not previously been reported fall outside of the procedure.
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.
Where distress or inconvenience is experienced following a service failure the landlord can make a discretionary payment of up to £250
The Housing Ombudsman complaint handling code (the Code) says:
1. A landlord must accept a complaint unless there is a valid reason not to do so.
2. Under paragraph 4.1, when a complaint is made, it must be acknowledged and logged at stage 1 of the complaints procedure within 5 days of receipt.
3. Under paragraph 5.1, landlords must respond to the stage 1complaint within 10 working days of the complaint being logged.
4. Under paragraph 5.3, landlords must respond to the stage 2 complaint within 20 working days of the complaint being escalated.
5. Under paragraphs 5.8 and 5.16, landlords must confirm the following in writing to the resident at the completion of stages 1and 2 in clear plain language:
  1. The complaint stage.
  2. The complaint definition.
  3. The decision of the complaint.
  4. The reasons for any decisions made.
  5. Details of how to escalate the matter if the resident is not satisfied with the answer.
6. Under paragraph 5.14, 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 resident had previously raised concerns about the landlord’s handling of her reports of ASB, including comments that had been made by her housing officer, in a complaint she sent to the landlord on an undisclosed date in 2018. This landlord responded to the complaint prior to the complaints that are assessed in this report and the historical events that were the subject of the 2018 complaint would usually not be investigated by this Service. However, the landlord refers back to the advice it had previously provided to the resident in the 2018 complaint response in its subsequent complaint responses which form the basis of this report. It is therefore appropriate for the landlord’s original complaint response to be included for information and context.
The landlord sent a stage 1complaint response to the resident on 15 October 2018. The landlord said:
1. The complaint had not been assigned correctly which had caused a delay in issuing a response. It apologised for this.
2. It had advised the resident to report the vandalism of her car and threatening gestures to the police for it to investigate the matter and if the police identified the perpetrator the landlord would take appropriate action.
3. It had installed CCTV in response to the resident’s reports that her neighbours were drilling into the property and deliberately placing mice in her home.
4. It had reviewed hours of CCTV footage and could not find any evidence of the matters the resident had reported on the dates and times she had said they were happening.
5. It was satisfied no one was drilling or letting mice into her home.
6. It apologised for any offence some undisclosed comments that had been made by a housing officer had caused the resident.
7. The comments were not intended as spiteful in any way.
8. It was worried for the resident’s wellbeing and encouraged her to make an appointment with her GP.
9. It could provide the contact details of a number of support agencies upon request.
Following contact from the resident, this Service wrote to the landlord on 25 August 2020 and asked it to provide a complaint response to the resident about its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB and how the housing officer had treated the resident. The letter said:
1. The resident’s car had been vandalised on a number of occasions.
2. One of the ASB perpetrators drilled at night which had caused a lot of damage to the ceiling and the electrics’ cupboard.
3. There had been a deliberate mice infestation (because the resident had a fear of mice), and verbal and physical abuse incidents.
4. The ASB included hard drug use.
5. The resident felt there was vendetta of ASB against her that had made her feel suicidal and scared for her wellbeing.
6. The housing officer had been aggressive towards the resident and had openly said that he didn’t want to deal with her, as well as threatening her.
7. The resident wanted to be moved off the development into another property and provided with compensation for the way that she had been treated.
The landlord replied to this Service later the same day to say it had reviewed its records and could find only one complaint from the resident about the matters this Service had raised in a complaint which it had received on 3 September 2018 and responded to on 15 October 2018. The landlord said the resident had not sent an escalation request to that complaint and in any event it would consider any escalation request to be outside of its complaint handling timescales. The landlord advised it would forward the information this Service had provided internally so that a response to the matters could be provided to the resident.
This Service emailed the landlord on 16 September 2020 to ask it to send a complaint response to the resident within 5 working days. This was requested because the resident had not received the landlord’s response to the complaint that had been raised by this Service on her behalf on 25 August 2020.
The landlord emailed this Service on 18 September 2020 to advise it would make contact with the resident and decide if her concerns would be registered as a complaint or general enquiry.
The landlord issued a stage 1response to the resident on 23 September 2020. The landlord said:
1. The matters the resident had raised related to car vandalism, mice being wilfully placed in the property and drilling into the property.
2. The matters were the same as those already investigated for which a written response had previously been provided.
3. The housing officer visited the estate at least monthly to check for health and safety issues and anything untoward and would log the findings and complete follow up actions.
4. It would arrange for a surveyor to visit the property to check for any structural damage caused by repetitive drilling over so many years.
5. The resident had already registered for a transfer with the local authority, but it would agree to add her to its management transfer lists as well.
6. It did not see any service failure in its actions and therefore could not offer the resident any compensation for its handling of the ASB reports.
7. It had issued its complaint response later that its target time and so offered compensation of £50 as a gesture of goodwill for the inconvenience.
The resident emailed the landlord on 30 September 2020 to advise she wished to accept the compensation it offered for its delay in responding to her complaint. The resident also said:
1. She wanted the landlord to arrange for a surveyor to visit the property to investigate the drilling from the neighbours.
2. She feared for her safety because her neighbour was giving her cat vermin which he had been storing in his flat.
3. The matters had been going on for 9 years and it was 100 percent the neighbours doing the damage.
4. She had been asking to relocate but not been able to sign in to her online rehousing account.
5. She didn’t want to live in a dump or have to do any work because she had a spine and leg condition.
6. She wanted further compensation for 10 years of misery.
7. Her housing officer was a liar and was never on the estate for more than 15 minutes and she didn’t trust him.
8. She wished to move from her property as soon as possible and would need the landlord to help move her furniture as she had no transport and had a health condition.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s response to its stage 1complaint on 7 October 2020. The landlord said:
1. It would arrange for the £50 compensation to be paid into the resident’s bank account.
2. It would investigate why she could not sign in to her rehousing account.
3. It would look for alternative accommodation to help her with her move.
4. The surveyor’s visit would help it understand where the problem was coming from, and that it could take it from there.
The Ombudsman contacted the landlord on 18 November 2020 to ask it to make contact with the resident about some issues the resident had raised about the properties she had been viewing.
The landlord wrote to this Service on 23 November 2020 to acknowledge the information that we had provided on 18 November 2020. The landlord advised that it had not received any recent contact from the resident either to raise a complaint, or request to speak to her housing officer. The landlord said it would contact the resident to discuss her housing concerns.
This Service contacted the landlord on 4 December 2020 and asked it to provide a stage 2 complaint response to the resident within 5 working days. The letter said:
1. The complaint was about:
  1. How the landlord had handled her reports of ASB from neighbouring properties.
  2. The landlord’s response to how she had been treated by her housing officer.
  3. How the landlord had handled her rehousing application.
2. The resident had asked for the landlord to rehouse her into a more suitable property and for the landlord to provide her with some compensation.
3. The resident had not received a complaint response from the landlord.
The landlord sent an internal email on 11 December 2020 that said:
1. The resident had clearly received its stage 1complaint response because she had responded to it by email on 30 September 2020 when she accepted the compensation offer.
2. The resident’s transfer application had been updated but the resident hadn’t been bidding.
3. The landlord had looked among its own housing stock for suitable one bed properties which it had offered to the resident prior to offering them to the local authority. However the resident had hurled abuse at the landlord because according to the resident the landlord had “wanted to put her in a dump”.
4. The landlord had previously advised the resident that it would not make any further offers of accommodation and that she would need to bid on properties.
5. The reports of drilling had previously been investigated and were unfounded.
The landlord contacted this Service on 11 December 2020 and said it had resent a copy of its stage 1response letter to the resident which it had previously sent on 23 September 2020.
The landlord contacted this Service again later the same day and advised:
1. It had been in regular contact with the resident.
2. The resident had confirmed she had received its stage 1complaint response.
3. It would arrange a meeting in the new year to discuss the matters that had been addressed in the stage 1complaint response.
4. It would arrange for a surveyor to inspect the property.
5. It had not received a stage 2 escalation request from the resident and trusted it would be OK to work through the issues because assistance was being supplied after the stage 1response.
6. If the resident asked for her complaint to be escalated it would be arranged.
The resident contacted this Service on 18 June 2021 to advise that she had escalated her previous complaint to stage 2 and the landlord had agreed to meet with her. The resident also said she had been made offers of property in areas she did not want to live and was in fear at her current property.
This Service emailed the landlord on 1 July 2021 to make it aware of the resident’s escalation request and advise it to respond to her in accordance with the timescales of the Code.
This Service sent a further stage 2 escalation request to the landlord on behalf of the resident on 6 August 2021.The landlord replied later the same day to say it had not received an escalation request from the resident since it was last in contact with this Service on 11 December 2020 when the resident’s complaint was at stage1.
The landlord sent a stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 20 August 2021. The landlord said:
1. The complaint was about how it had responded to reports of ASB and how the resident had been treated.
2. There was no evidence to support the resident’s claims that for several years the upstairs neighbour had been drilling holes and infesting the resident’s home with mice.
3. It had inspected the property a number of times to look for evidence of holes and mice, but the resident had been unable to show it any.
4. The resident’s neighbour had denied the allegations that had been made when they were asked about the matter.
5. It had reviewed hours of CCTV footage and there had been no evidence of any ASB recorded. The ASB case had been closed in 2018.
6. Despite these actions being taken there had been no evidence that the landlord had met its ASB policy timescales.
7. It was unable to demonstrate that it had contacted the resident about her reports within 24 hours, nor visited her within 5 days.
8. It acknowledged this was a service failure and offered the resident £150 compensation for inconvenience.
9. It had investigated comments that had been made by the resident’s housing officer in September 2018 and had concluded:
  1. The comments had come from a place of concern.
  2. It had been evident that the resident’s wellbeing had been affected by what was going on.
  3. No action had been taken as no evidence of wrongdoing had been found and this element of the complaint was not upheld.
10. The resident had been added to the transfer list and had been given a priority banding.
11. It had previously made 2 reasonable offers of accommodation which the resident had rejected.
12. It had gone above its policy by making more than one offer, but it had decided it would make a third and final reasonable offer to the resident.
13. If the resident declined the final offer she would have to bid for properties using the local authority rehousing database.
14. It could only make offers of relet homes because its new build properties had to be passed to the local authority for letting.
15. The resident could contact the local authority about its waiting list.
16. There had been a delay in issuing the stage 2 complaint response, therefore it offered a further £75 compensation.
The resident’s complaint was accepted for investigation by this Service on 21 June 2022.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to resident’s reports of ASB caused by her neighbours.

It is evident that this situation has been distressing to the resident. It may help to firstly explain that the Ombudsman’s role is not to decide if the actions of the neighbour amounted to ASB, but rather, whether the landlord dealt with the resident’s reports about this appropriately and reasonably.
The landlord had previously sent a stage 1complaint response to the resident on 15 October 2018 about reports of vandalism to her car, drilling into her property, and mice being deliberately placed in her home. The landlord explained that it had installed CCTV at that time which it had monitored and that it had visited the resident to inspect the access points in the property but did not find any evidence to support the allegations. The landlord closed the ASB complaint in 2018 due there being no evidence available.
The resident reported the same ASB concerns to this Service in August 2020 which resulted in a request being made for the landlord to raise a new stage 1complaint about the matters. The landlord reviewed its records and replied to this Service later the same day to advise that it had previously addressed the matters in 2018 and that no further complaints had been received from the resident since then. Reviewing its records to ascertain the nature and relevance of the resident’s concerns was an appropriate decision for the landlord to take.
The landlord recognised that the complaint was about its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB and whilst the incidents dated back further than 6 months and were therefore outside of its complaint policy it provided a stage 1complaint response on 23 September 2020. This was a solution focused decision for the landlord to make to ensure the resident’s concerns were addressed.
The landlord agreed to visit the resident to discuss the ASB matters she had raised with this Service prior to sending its complaint response and this was an appropriate action for the landlord to take to hear firsthand the resident’s concerns. However the landlord did not confirm that it would do this until 18 September 2020 which was 18 working days after the matters had been raised by this Service. The landlord’s ASB policy says it will contact a resident about their ASB concerns within one day and that it will arrange a visit within 5 days therefore it was inappropriate for the landlord not to have complied with its own policy. This Service has not seen any evidence to confirm when the landlord met with the resident, but it provided its stage one complaint response 5 working days later on 23 September 2020 and included reference to the ASB matters. It is therefore reasonable for this Service to conclude that the landlord discussed the matters with the resident as it said it would between 18 and 23 September 2020.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response referred the resident back to its previous investigations into the ASB matters and the advice it had provided in its previous stage 1response of 2018. However, the landlord offered to reinvestigate the matters by arranging for a surveyor to check the property for any damage the ongoing drilling may have caused. Committing to investigate the matters the resident had said were ongoing was an appropriate response for the landlord to take to verify the safety of the property and the extent of drilling and to assess the impact it may have had on the resident. The landlord later confirmed it had completed this inspection on an undisclosed date but found there to be no concerns or evidence of drilling or mice being deliberately placed in the property.
The landlord did not receive any further reports about ASB from the resident again until this Service contacted the landlord on 18 November 2020 on her behalf. The landlord confirmed to this Service that it had previously investigated the ASB matters that had been raised and that the reports were unfounded. The landlord also said that it had been in regular contact with the resident since it had issued its complaint response. Maintaining regular contact with the resident and providing her with information and advice as it was required during this time was an appropriate way for the landlord to rebuild the resident’s confidence in its housing services. Furthermore, this was a reasonable and resolution focused approach for the landlord to take given it had investigated the resident’s reports and there was a lack of conclusive evidence of the ASB to support the landlord taking further, more formal action.
In its stage 2 complaint response the landlord acknowledged that it had failed to act in accordance with the provisions of its ASB policy as it had not contacted the resident about her ASB reports within 24 hours, nor visited her within 5 days. The landlord offered the resident an apology and an offer of £150 as compensation for any inconvenience its failings had caused the resident. When there are acknowledged failings by a landlord, as is the case here, the Ombudsman will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord 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 (acknowledgment of a failing and compensation) was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles; be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
The landlord acted fairly by acknowledging its failure to act in accordance with its ASB policy for which it offered an apology. Furthermore, the compensation amount of £150 is proportionate to the distress and inconvenience incurred by the resident as a result of the landlord’s acknowledged failings. This amount is in line with the provisions of the landlord’s compensation and good will gestures policy for cases where distress or inconvenience is experienced following a service failure.
This Service has not seen any evidence to confirm if the landlord had opened a new ASB case to address the resident’s concerns or if it had sent a letter to the resident to explain why the matter had not been registered as an ASB case if that had been its decision. This was inappropriate and did not align with the principles of its ASB policy. Further, it was a missed opportunity for the landlord to provide clear communication to the resident about what it could or could not do to address her ASB concerns. This caused detriment to the resident who was uncertain about what actions the landlord would take to address her ASB concerns.
This Service had not seen any evidence to confirm whether the landlord completed a vulnerability assessment, or any similar assessment to consider how it might best respond to the resident’s concerns. Given the landlord’s awareness of the resident’s mental health concerns and the nature of her ASB reports it would have been reasonable for it to have considered what further support she might need and to have directed her to the support services set out on its website.
Taking all matters into account this Service finds service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB caused by her neighbours.

The landlord’s response to resident’s reports about the conduct of the housing officer.

This Service contacted the landlord on 25 August 2020 and asked it to register a stage 11complaint about the conduct of the housing officer. The landlord replied later the same day to explain that it had previously investigated and responded to the matter in a previous stage 1 complaint response that it had issued on 15 October 2018. Reviewing its records to ascertain the nature and relevance of the matter that had been raised via this Service was an appropriate action for the landlord to take to so that it could appropriately apply the principles of its complaint policy and the Code. The landlord explained that it had not received an escalation request from the resident in 2018, nor any further complaints from the resident about the housing officer’s conduct since it provided its stage 1complaint response in 2018.
The investigation the landlord completed in 2018 is outside of the scope of this investigation, however this Service has been provided with a copy of its October 2018 complaint response. It is evident that the landlord had apologised for any offence that the housing officer’s comments might have caused and said that the comments were not spiteful and came from a place of concern. The letter encouraged the resident to make an appointment with her GP and said it could provide contact information for support agencies upon request. This Service cannot reinvestigate this matter or reinterpret a decision that the landlord was entitled to make. However it was appropriate for the landlord to have investigated the resident’s concerns and to have provided a written apology to the resident about her concerns about the housing officer’s conduct.
The landlord advised this Service that it would contact the resident about the matters she had raised again prior to issuing a new stage 1complaint response on 23 September 2020. This was an appropriate decision for the landlord to make to verify if there had been any recent concerns about the conduct of the housing officer. Furthermore it provided the resident with an opportunity to raise the concerns she may have had herself separately to the representations this Service had made on her behalf.
The landlord provided information about the duties of the housing officer in its stage 1 response of 23 September 2020 and did not refer to or re-address the previous comments that had been made by housing officer that been addressed in its 2018 complaint response. The landlord did, however, take the opportunity to readdress the matters in its stage 2 complaint response of 21 August 2021 in which it said it had not taken any action because it had found no evidence of wrongdoing. Taking the opportunity to review its response to the matters in its final response was an appropriate decision for the landlord to take to ensure that matters had been fully addressed and that its decision not to uphold the complaint was clearly communicated to the resident in writing.
Taking all matters into account this Service finds no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about the conduct of the housing officer.

The landlord’s response to resident’s request to be rehoused.

It is not clear to this Service when the resident had previously made contact with the landlord to request rehousing, or when she had registered a transfer application with the local authority using its rehousing database. However, this Service emailed the landlord on 25 August 2020 and asked it to provide a stage 1complaint response to the resident about issues including her request to move into another property due to concerns she had about her housing situation. The landlord provided a response to the resident’s complaint on 23 September 2020 in which it said she was already registered for a transfer with the local authority and that it had agreed to include her on its own management move internal transfer list. Whilst it is not clear to this Service when the landlord decided to add the resident to its management move internal transfer list it was a decision that it was entitled to make in line with its transfer policy. Therefore it was appropriate for the landlord to communicate this to the resident in writing.
The resident advised she had been unable to sign in to the local authority’s rehousing database in an email she had sent to the landlord on 30 September 2020. The landlord responded to the resident’s concerns within 5 working days to say it would investigate the resident’s access difficulties. It was appropriate for the landlord to have committed to investigate the matters and provide this information to the resident within a reasonable timescale.
The landlord informed this Service that it had provided the resident with more than one reasonable offer of accommodation under its management move transfer list. However, the resident had responded with abuse because she said that the landlord had wanted “to put her in a dump.” The landlord’s decision about the type of property it could offer the resident was based upon the availability of suitable one-bedroom properties and the requirements and needs of the resident. By doing so the landlord acted within the provisions of its transfer policy when considering the resident for a management move.
The landlord’s transfer policy said that it would offer one suitable offer of accommodation to residents that it had registered on its management moves list. The landlord had acted appropriately by offering the resident a property and demonstrated a resolution focused approach by offering more than one property, even though it was not required to under the provisions of the transfer policy. It was therefore reasonable for the landlord to have subsequently referred the resident back to the local authority rehousing database to bid for properties herself. The landlord reviewed and updated the resident’s rehousing application on 11 December 2020 which was an appropriate action for the landlord to take to ensure the resident could bid on property she was eligible for. The landlord recognised that the resident had not been bidding on properties herself prior to this date, despite the requirement to bid being the resident’s responsibility. It is not clear to this Service how the landlord supported the resident with bidding, but this Service would have expected the landlord to have provided the resident with information about the rehousing process, such as by writing to her, signposting her to the local authority, or by holding a conversation with the resident so as to manage her expectations.
The landlord reviewed its handling of the resident’s rehousing request in its stage 2 complaint response in which it explained it had reviewed and updated her local authority transfer application and had made 2 offers of suitable accommodation which the resident had rejected. Furthermore it had decided to made a further final offer of accommodation to the resident. Taking all matters into account this Service find no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request to be rehoused.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaints.

There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaints as the landlord:
1. Did not register the resident’s stage 1complaint in line with its complaint policy despite her advising this Service she had made complaints before she contacted this Service in August 2020.
2. Did not comply with the principles of the Housing Ombudsman scheme by registering a stage 1complaint upon the request of this Service on behalf of the resident on 25 August 2020.
3. Did not comply with its complaint policy by providing an acknowledgement letter to the resident that confirmed it had accepted a stage 1complaint prior to providing its stage 1complaint response on 23 September 2020.
4. Provided a stage 1complaint to the resident 10 working days later than its complaint policy target date of 9 September 2020.
5. Did not recognise the resident’s email of 30 September 2020 as a stage 2 escalation request despite the resident explaining her ongoing dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of her housing concerns.
6. Did not comply with the Code by providing a stage 2 complaint response to the resident by 11 December 2020 following the request made by this Service on 4 December 2020 to do so within 5 working days.
7. Advised this Service on 23 November 2020 that it had not received a stage 2 complaint request from the resident, despite this Service asking the landlord to provide a stage 2 complaint response on her behalf on 4 December 2020.
8. Failed to respond to the advice this Service provided on 1 July 2021 that the resident had sent an escalation request and that it should respond to her in accordance with the principles of the Code.
9. Provided a stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 20 August 2021 which was 207 working days after the resident had said she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s stage 1complaint response on 30 September 2020. This was not compliant with the landlord’s complaint policy or the Code.
When a landlord is at fault it need to put things right by acknowledging its mistakes and apologising for them, explaining why things went wrong and what the landlord will do to prevent the same mistake happening again. The landlord offered the resident £125 for its complaint handling failures. However, this figure did not reflect the level of detriment that had been caused to the resident in pursuing an appropriate response to her complaints. An order for an increased award of compensation is therefore made below.

The landlord’s record keeping practices.

Although we were still able to determine this case using the information that was available this Service would expect a landlord to keep and supply a robust record of contacts and actions related to matters addressed in this case. However, the evidence provided has not been comprehensive. It is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail. If we investigate a complaint, we will ask for the landlord’s records. If there is disputed evidence and no audit trail, we may not be able to conclude that an action took place or that the landlord followed its own policies and procedures.
The landlord failed to provide evidence to this Service such as letters, file notes, case files, application forms and/or emails to substantiate the actions it took in relation to:
1. Its investigation of the reports of ASB that this Service raised on behalf of the resident between 25 August 2020 and its final complaint response of 21 August 2021.
2. The surveyor’s inspection(s) of the resident’s property.
3. Its conclusion that there remained no ASB concerns related to drilling or mice in the resident’s property.
4. An assessment of the resident’s vulnerability and/or other assessments of wellbeing or risk.
5. Its contact with alternative support agencies to assist with the management of the resident’s housing concerns.
6. The discussions it held with the resident about the conduct of the housing officer prior to issuing its stage 1complaint response to the resident in September 2020.
7. It’s decision to accept the resident onto its management moves internal transfer list and how this was communicated to the resident.
8. Its resolution of the sign in difficulties the resident had when accessing the local authorities housing database.
9. The offers of suitable offers of accommodation it made to the resident and whether the properties were viewed and/or why they were declined which was information it had referenced it its complaint response.
10. Information it provided to the resident to assist her with making bids on properties when it was determined that she had not been bidding on properties on 11 December 2020.

Determination (decision)

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 reports of ASB caused by her neighbours.
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about the conduct of the housing officer.
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s request to be rehoused.
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaints.
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s record keeping practices.

Reasons

The landlord did not complete a vulnerability assessment, or any similar assessment to consider how it might best respond to the resident’s concerns. The landlord did not direct the resident to the support services it sets out on its website. Furthermore the landlord did not provide clear communication to the resident about what it could or could not do to address her ASB concerns.
The landlord investigated the concerns that had been raised about the conduct of the housing officer and referred the resident back to the outcomes of its previous investigation in its complaint response. The landlord reviewed its response to the matters again in its final stage 2 complaint response in which it clearly advised the resident in writing that it did not uphold this aspect if the resident’s complaint. This information was provided after the landlord had held discussions with the resident and staff member about the housing officer’s role.
The landlord agreed to add the resident to its internal management moves list as a result of her housing situation and the concerns the landlord had for her wellbeing. The landlord offered the resident 2 alternative properties which she declined. The landlord agreed to make a third final offer to the resident which was above and beyond the requirements of its transfer policy.
The landlord did not comply with the principles of its own policy and the Code when handling the resident’s complaint and responding to this Service. This caused unnecessary delays and resulted in the resident waiting for 207 working days for a final response to the resident’s complaint to be provided.
Although we were still able to determine this case using the information that was available the landlord failed to provide sufficient records of actions it had taken in response to matters that had been raised in this case.

Orders

The landlord is ordered to apologise to the resident in writing for its ASB and complaint handling failures. 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 £450 in compensation made up as follows:
1. £150 for the distress and inconvenience incurred by the resident as a result of the landlord’s failings in its response to her reports of ASB.
2. £300 for the time and trouble incurred by the resident as a result of the landlord’s complaint handling failures.

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

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to contact the resident to complete a vulnerability assessment and to use any findings to engage with appropriate support services.
Within 8 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to review the learning on this case in respect of its management of knowledge and information. The landlord should review and incorporate best practise highlighted in the Housing Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on knowledge and information into the provision of housing services.