Notting Hill Genesis (NHG) (202012762)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202012762

Notting Hill Genesis

21 July 2023 (amended at review 31 October 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 is about the landlords handling of:
   1. the resident’s transfer application, and;
   2. the associated complaint handling.

Background

2. The resident and her husband were joint tenants of the landlord under an assured tenancy agreement since 2012. The property is a one-bedroom flat.
3. In April 2017 the resident gave birth to twins and applied for a larger property on overcrowding and medical grounds.
4. The resident’s application was assessed by the landlord and placed in band C of the landlord’s internal banding system.
5. In August 2020 the resident became dissatisfied about the lack of progress of her rehousing application and dissatisfied with the banding awarded by the landlord in view of the breadth of evidence provided by health professionals. She submitted a stage 1 complaint about the landlord’s handling of her transfer application since 2017.
6. In its stage 1 response the landlord apologised for the poor and inadequate service she had received since 2017 but due to the amount of time that had passed advised it would only look at matters from June 2020.
7. It also explained its internal banding system and provided advice on housing options such as homeswapper. The resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and requested her complaint be escalated to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaint process in October 2020.
8. The landlord declined to escalate the resident’s complaint to stage 2 on the grounds that it could not investigate the historic issues, but invited the resident to submit relevant documentation so it could carry out a banding review.
9. In December 2020 the landlord increased the resident’s banding to band B (medical). The increase in banding resulted in a high level of management of the resident’s rehousing case by the landlord. Between January 2020 and April 2020, it checked the weekly lists of available properties on her behalf and made offers of properties to the resident.
10. In June 2021 the landlord advised the resident that it would not be making any further offers to the resident citing a pre-existing tenancy matter and when the tenancy matter was resolved she would receive one more offer and then would have to bid independently.
11. The resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s approach and contacted the Ombudsman in 2022 seeking advice. The Ombudsman contacted the landlord on the resident’s behalf and the landlord re-opened the resident’s October 2020 complaint.
12. In its final stage 2 response the landlord advised the resident that an internal error meant it had placed her application in the wrong category of band B which meant it should not have made any direct offers to her in the first place. The landlord apologised for the error, apologised for its complaint handling, and offered £100 in compensation for its complaint handling.
13. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and brought her complaint back to the Ombudsman. To resolve the issue the resident wants to be assisted to move and be compensated for delays and distress.

Assessment and findings

The handling of resident’s transfer application

14. The landlord operates a banding scheme to prioritise residents who need to move. Band A, band B, band C and band D. Within each band there may be different categories. In this case the landlord’s band B has two categories. Band B (management transfer) and band B (medical).
15. The landlord mistakenly placed the resident’s transfer application in band B (management transfer) category instead of band B (medical).
16. The landlord’s error was favourable to the resident in that on a weekly basis between January and April 2021 the landlord actively looked for available properties for the resident and made direct offers of these properties to her.
17. On 5 May 2021 there was a change of landlord officer managing the resident’s case. The outgoing officer wrote to the incoming officer, (copying in the resident to the handover email) “Can you kindly keep an eye on the weekly void lists and update the resident if anything becomes available in her preferred location, you may also like to check with the team if there is anything available in (location redacted)”.
18. On 28 June 2021 the resident emailed the landlord and queried why she had not received an update or any offers of accommodation. The landlord raised a pre-existing tenancy matter between the resident and her spouse and informed the resident that it would be more than happy to find her a more suitable property but would not take any further steps to rehouse her until the resident became a sole tenant.
19. The landlord’s sudden change of direction caused the resident to be distressed and confused as to why the landlord was raising the tenancy issue for the first time at that stage.
20. The landlord’s transfers procedure states that “a resident has the right to appeal to the landlord’s lettings panel on any decision made by the housing manager”.
21. The landlord has not provided any evidence that it notified the resident of its decision not to make any further offers, and not provided any evidence that it gave her the right to request a review of its decision. The resident only found out about the landlord’s decision when she raised a query about why she had not received any updates or offers of accommodation.
22. The Ombudsman expects landlords to notify an applicant of any matter that affects their ability to bid or receive a direct offer and advise them of their appeal rights against such a decision.
23. On 13 July 2021 the resident emailed the landlord and advised that she had identified two available properties within her building and asked to view the properties based on her band B management transfer status. The landlord maintained its position and said it would not be going ahead with the management transfer until the resident and her spouse resolved the tenancy matter.
24. On 20 July 2021 the tenancy matter was resolved and the following day the landlord wrote to the resident stating “Going forward, you have management transfer which is one offer only. If you decline any future properties, you will have to go back to the bidding process”. It also advised her that the properties she had identified in her building had already been allocated.
25. The Ombudsman finds that between January 2021 and the end of April 2021 the resident was accustomed to receiving weekly contact from the landlord about available properties and receiving direct offers of properties.
26. The landlord’s position was that this should never have happened and decided the resident would have to start bidding independently.  The resident was displeased with the landlord’s change of approach and advised the landlord that it should continue to directly offer properties to her.
27. The landlord’s Allocations and Lettings policy at 3.3 states “A small proportion of our properties are used to accommodate transfers for those with a recognised housing need according to our banding scheme or transfer schemes. We advertise these homes through CBL or make the transfer applicant a direct offer.”
28. The Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord can make a direct offer of accommodation to the resident.
29. The landlord was aware the resident, her spouse and children had high support needs leading to the resident being overwhelmed at times and requiring professional support. Additionally, the resident advised the landlord that its approach was having a profound impact on her mental health.
30. The landlord’s transfer procedure 1.16 Helping residents to bid, states “Some residents may need help bidding because they do not have access to the internet, they have difficulties with reading or writing or they have other support needs. The housing officers should speak to them and work out the best way for them to bid. This may be by bidding on their behalf.”
31. The landlord lacked curiosity around the resident’s resistance to bidding independently and does not appear to have tried to engage in a constructive, solution-based dialogue with her about her reasons.
32. The Ombudsman expects the landlord as the expert, to adopt a collaborative and constructive approach towards its residents to overcome issues and remove barriers to help applicants secure alternative accommodation.
33. There is no evidence that the landlord considered the possibility of bidding on her behalf as a support measure to offset its historic mishandling of the case, the misinformation it had given her at different stages, and the mistakes it had made during its handling of the application.
34. The Ombudsman finds the landlord’s approach was unreasonable, lacked empathy, and was heavy handed.
35. While it is acknowledged the case has complexities, the Ombudsman can find no evidence that between May 2021 and the time this complaint was made that it made an offer of one property as per its email to the resident of 21 July 2021.
36. Accordingly, the resident’s complaint about the handling of her transfer application is upheld because this investigation has identified failings which adversely affected the resident’s chances of being rehoused into suitable accommodation.
37. The landlord misinformed the resident that it cannot make the resident any direct offers. This was factually incorrect and caused the resident to become distressed and experience a feeling of hopelessness. The landlord’s position that it would no longer bid on her behalf was unfair and unreasonable in the circumstances and again caused the resident to feel distressed and upset.
38. At times the landlord’s approach hampered the resident’s ability to secure alternative accommodation for herself and her children 
39. Accordingly, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s transfer application.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

40. The landlord’s complaints policy states “We will investigate your complaint and respond to you with a formal written response within 10 working days” and in respect of stage 2 complaints states “We will respond to you with a formal written response within 20 working days”.
41. The landlord’s complaint responses were late at both stages. The resident had to chase the landlord for the stage 1 complaint response which was then provided 12 days late. The stage 2 response advising the resident of its refusal to escalate to stage 2, was one day late and was not closed after the banding review (on its own, a single occasion of one day late is not significant enough to cause detriment or inconvenience to the resident) but its final stage 2 response was also provided late.
42. The landlord offered £100 in compensation because its final stage 2 response was late but did not acknowledge the failings at stages 1 and its first stage 2 response.
43. The resident advised the Ombudsman that she found the situation of chasing up the landlord for responses stressful and tiring.
44. In its stage 1 response the landlord apologised for the poor and inadequate service provided to her since 2017 and acknowledged the situation had a detrimental impact on her health. It also advised it was not aware of the 100% nomination rights agreement and advised it would check the voids list for any available properties within her building, the inference being if there was anything available that she would be offered it.
45. The resident was dissatisfied with some parts of the landlord’s stage 1 response, specifically its explanation of its 100% nomination’s agreement with the local authority. On 5 October 2020 the resident requested to escalate her complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaint process. The landlord’s stage 2 response invited her to submit further documentation so that it could review her priority banding which it did, and the resident’s priority banding was increased in December 2020.
46. The status of the resident’s complaint after this is unclear. It is possible that the landlord considered the complaint was resolved after it increased the resident’s priority banding. However, the complaint does not appear to have been closed by the landlord. 
47. In March 2022 the resident complained to the Ombudsman about the issues. In turn the Ombudsman informed the landlord of the complaint and asked it to complete its internal complaints process. The landlord used the matters complained about in October 2020 as the point of reference to begin looking again at the complaint in March 2022.
48. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint process requires the complaint investigator to prepare a complaints pack for the independent reviewer. Accordingly, on 30 May 2022 the landlord prepared a complaint pack for the independent resident reviewer.
49. The solution stated by the landlord in the complaint pack was “once the transfer procedure has been explained (again), the HOM may want to consider making one further direct offer but explain this will be the final direct offer”.
50. The landlord’s final stage 2 response makes no mention of the solution it proposed in the complaint pack and fails to mention its email to the resident on the 21 July 2021 informing her that she would receive one more direct offer.
51. Section 4.6 of the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code states “The complaint investigator must consider all information and evidence carefully”.
52. The Ombudsman finds the landlord’s stage 2 response was misleading when it stated it was unable to offer the resident any properties in the area due to the nomination’s agreement. The Ombudsman is satisfied it can make an offer to the resident because it has done previously, and the allocations policy allows the landlord to make direct offers to residents.
53. The landlord’s complaint investigation overlooked the email it sent to the resident stating it was going to make the resident a final offer. Therefore, the Ombudsman is not satisfied the landlord has considered all the information and evidence available to it during the complaint investigation.
54. Accordingly, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Determination

55. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s transfer application.
56. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders

57. It is ordered that within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord should pay the resident a total of £950. Comprising of:
    1. £800 for the maladministration in its handling of the resident’s transfer application
    2. £150 for the maladministration in the handling of the associated complaint.
58. This is inclusive of the £100 offered to the resident in the landlord’s final stage 2 response dated 4 June 2022.
59. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord should offer a meeting with a member of its senior management team, the resident and any appointed representatives/advocates to identify the precise locations that would be suitable for the resident and her children and based on these proceed to make the direct offer it referred to in July 2021. The landlord is permitted to do this within the limitations of the agreement it has in place with the Local Authority as it relates to nominations.
60. The landlord should provide evidence of compliance within four weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

61. Following the above ordered meeting (and once the landlord has established and agreed the resident’s housing needs) it should also continue to support the resident in applying for properties via the various methods available, as per its policy on assisting vulnerable tenants.
62. The landlord may wish to consider mediation with the resident to try and mend the landlord/tenant relationship and discuss the issues and concerns regarding the handling of the resident’s application. The resident is not obliged to attend if she does not wish to.