Notting Hill Genesis (NHG) (202102235)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202102235

Notting Hill Genesis (NHG)

15 March 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:
1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s request to be rehoused.
3. The landlord’s complaint handling.
The Ombudsman has also assessed the landlord’s record keeping.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the property. The property is a 2-bedroom terrace house. The resident has dyslexia and suffers from anxiety and depression. She lives at the property with her 2 daughters, who are currently aged 17 and 12. Both children also suffer from mental health conditions, including anxiety and depression, and one child has post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).
The resident is a victim of domestic abuse and has previously obtained a non-molestation order against her former partner. The former partner did not live at the property, but he frequently visited and harassed the resident while there. The resident is involved in the Multi-Agency Risk Assessment Conference (MARAC) domestic abuse process as she is recognised by the agencies involved, which include the police and health professionals, as being a high-risk victim.
During 2019, the resident temporarily moved out of the property and into a refuge to escape the domestic abuse. In October 2019, the landlord determined that she was eligible for a management transfer and that she fell within ‘Band A’, which is the highest priority category for transfers. In March 2020 the resident returned to the property. By this time, the resident had fallen into rent arrears.
The resident and her adjoining neighbours have the same landlord, but the neighbours are leaseholders rather than tenants. There was a long history of dispute, mostly about noise, between the parties dating back to shortly after the resident moved into the property in 2015. The landlord and the police worked with them to try and resolve this. Prior to 2021, formal mediation was attempted but was not successful.
In March 2021, the resident reported ASB to the landlord in respect of her neighbours. The landlord completed an ASB record which provided a brief synopsis of the ongoing issues between the parties. No further records, such as action plans or risk assessments, were provided by the landlord to this Service.
In April 2021, the resident’s mother sent an email to the landlord, elected representatives and the Housing Ombudsman. The resident was copied into the email, and the mother stated she was emailing on her behalf. The email was entitled, “Let down by the system. We are desperate.” It provided a short history of the resident’s time living at the property and referred to the domestic abuse she suffered. The email stated:
1. The neighbours added to the resident’s distress by continuously harassing her. This included banging on walls, verbal abuse and threatening the resident and her children.
2. The resident had contacted various agencies, including the landlord for help, but each time her case would be closed with no conclusions. This had a “massive impact” on her mental health. She suffered 2 mini-strokes. The children suffered mentally due to not understanding what was going on.
3. While living in the refuge, the resident and her children were, “withdrawn, depressed and near suicide.”
4. The resident hoped that the time away from the property would mean things would have ‘calmed down’ with the neighbours. When the resident returned in March 2020, the neighbour escalated the situation.
5. The resident was approved for a management transfer but was only ever offered 1 property which was not suitable for the children due to location.
6. A move was needed immediately for the wellbeing of the resident and her children.
The landlord did not respond to the email from the resident’s mother. The resident contacted the Ombudsman on 8 June 2021 and advised that she wished to formally complain about the landlord’s handling of the ongoing harassment from her neighbours and former partner. She also complained that she was not receiving any support from her landlord, particularly in relation to her rehousing request. The Ombudsman referred the complaint to the landlord.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 21 June 2021. The response stated that:
1. It was understood that there had been no recent incidents of aggression from the former partner, and that the main issue was the neighbours.
2. The resident needed to make contact with the landlord in order for it to know she was in need of help. The landlord had advised the resident during previous telephone calls to make a record of all incidents and report them to either the landlord or the police.
3. There were limited actions the landlord could take against the neighbours given they were leaseholders. The landlord had spoken to them about their behaviour and insisted they did not make contact with the resident. It advised the resident to do the same.
4. The landlord was sorry that the resident did not feel supported in relation to the rehousing request.
5. The resident was not currently eligible for a transfer due to her arrears, and that this had been explained to her on a number of occasions.
6. The landlord would assist the resident in making backdated benefits claims.
7. The landlord had learnt from this case that it needed to make contact with vulnerable residents more frequently than just once a year for an annual visit. It would ensure the resident felt supported going forward.
On 28 September 2021, the resident emailed the landlord and said she did not agree her complaint had been resolved. She explained that she did not have the academic capacity to take notes of all the incidents of harassment from her neighbours. She referred to having been on the management transfer list for many years and stated that none of her housing managers had ensured her housing needs were met. She asked to be moved with immediate effect. The landlord did not respond to this email.
Over the course of the next year, the dispute between the resident and her neighbours continued. The landlord attempted mediation again in March 2022 but this did not resolve the ongoing issues. In November 2022, the resident contacted the Housing Ombudsman and advised that she had never received a stage 2 complaint response further to her escalation request. With our intervention, the landlord then escalated the complaint.
The stage 2 response was issued on 23 January 2023. The landlord acknowledged that there were failures in relation to its handling of the ASB reports, the management transfer request, and in its complaints handling. It compared what did happen against what should have happened according to its policy. It apologised for all of the identified failings. It offered £150 compensation for its handling of the ASB, £150 for the handling of the transfer request, and £200 for complaint handling. It said the compensation would be credited to the resident’s arrears account.
The landlord also outlined some non-monetary outcomes. For example, it identified that the resident was incorrectly advised in the stage 1 response that she was not eligible to be rehoused due to the arrears on her account. It committed that going forward it would have fortnightly contact with her regarding suitable transfer opportunities. The landlord also said that it intended to use the resident’s experience to reflect on how it could improve its communications, management of ASB reports, and handling of complaints.
The resident was unhappy with the stage 2 response and the amount of compensation offered. She referred the complaint to the Ombudsman.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB

The landlord’s ASB policy sets out detailed steps as to how reports of ASB should be handled. Following receipt of a report, the policy requires the landlord to make initial contact with the complainant to determine what happened, whether they are vulnerable and whether there is any immediate risk of harm. A formal interview with the complainant should then be arranged. The policy states that the officer conducting the interview should be aware of any potential safeguarding issues relating to the complainant or anyone within the affected household. An action plan must then be drawn up and sent to the complainant. The landlord should discuss security measures with them if applicable. Where an investigation is required, this will usually involve the landlord interviewing the alleged perpetrator, gathering evidence and where appropriate sharing information with partner agencies. The policy emphasises that at each stage of the process, detailed, clear and factual records must be kept. It states that all actions and outcomes should be recorded, and that records should also make clear any vulnerabilities.
The only record that was provided to this Service by the landlord in relation to the resident’s reports was an ASB record dated 12 March 2021. The record was limited in detail and within the first section, entitled ‘conduct an interview’, there was a brief synopsis of the ongoing issues between the resident and the neighbours. Even though the ASB report on 12 March was instigated by the resident, much of the information in the record related to the neighbours’ complaints and advice they were given by the landlord. It is not clear from the record what the resident’s specific ASB report was on that day. The exact same information as was contained in the first section of the ASB record, was copied into the next 2 sections of the form entitled ‘risk assessment’ and ‘legal action’. These 2 sections contained no additional information and did not indicate whether a risk assessment was carried out or if legal action had been considered.
No further records have been provided by the landlord to evidence what follow up action was taken. The stage 2 response refers to the resident making an ASB report on 20 May 2021, but there are no records in relation to this report. Both the stage 1 and stage 2 complaint responses referred to conversations between the landlord and the resident. However, as the stage 2 response acknowledged, there were no notes of these discussions, no interview forms and no records of any further investigation being conducted by the landlord. The stage 2 response recognised that this is poor record keeping and is a breach of the ASB policy. The landlord reasonably stated that it would learn from this case and that going forward, all reports of ASB would be recorded and managed in line with policy. The importance of keeping accurate records, and the benefit this brings to both residents and landlords, has been explored in detail in the Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on ‘Knowledge and Information Management’ (KIM). This report is available on the Ombudsman’s website and is discussed in more detail below.
The absence of any further records relating to the resident’s ASB reports has limited the Ombudsman’s ability to assess whether the landlord’s response was reasonable or not. It would appear based on information contained in the stage 2 response, that although there were some phone calls between the landlord and the resident, none of the formal action required by the ASB policy was taken. There is no evidence that the resident was formally interviewed, that a plan of action was drawn up and sent to her, that security measures were discussed, or that a risk assessment was carried out. There is no evidence that there was then a formal investigation in which the neighbours were interviewed, additional evidence was gathered, and where information was shared with partner agencies. It follows that there is no evidence to demonstrate that the landlord responded to the resident’s reports appropriately.
In April 2021, when the resident’s mother emailed the landlord and others, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to contact the resident in line with its ASB policy to discuss the issues raised, gather evidence, and then decide what action would be necessary in the circumstances. However, there is no evidence that the landlord took any action in response to the email. This was despite the email containing numerous vulnerability red flags and safeguarding issues, as detailed above. If the landlord had followed its ASB policy, it would have been required to consider whether a risk assessment was required in relation to the resident, whether any referrals to partner agencies were required, and whether any other safeguarding action was appropriate. Given the serious nature of some of the comments within the email, it was not reasonable for the landlord to take no action in response to it. This was a significant failing on behalf of the landlord.
When dealing with the stage 1 complaint in June 2021, the landlord did not consider if its ASB policy had been followed when it received the resident’s reports about her neighbours. The landlord failed to apply the policy to decide what action should then be taken going forward. The complaint response simply advised the resident to make a record of all incidents and report them to either the landlord or the police, and to avoid contact with the neighbours. If the landlord had carried out a formal ASB interview and devised an action plan as required by its policy, either during its initial response or at the stage 1 complaint stage, it may have found out that the resident was dyslexic and therefore struggled to make written records. With that knowledge, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to then discuss with the resident alternative ways she could gather evidence. That did not happen in this case. As a result, the resident was not adequately supported.
The stage 1 response stated that based on conversations with the resident, it was understood her former partner was not currently harassing her. No further advice or signposting was offered, nor were security measures mentioned as recommended by the ASB policy. The stage 2 response acknowledged this. It suggested that had an interview taken place and the other steps in the ASB policy been followed, the landlord would have been able to determine that the resident was vulnerable and fearful in her home, which would have shaped how the landlord then dealt with the situation.
While it is positive that the landlord acknowledged the policy failure at stage 2, the response raises questions about why the extent of the resident’s vulnerabilities were not known at stage 1. Given the landlord’s involvement with the resident over the previous 6 years, the fact the resident had been given Band A transfer priority, and given the mother’s email in April 2021, there should reasonably have been markers on the resident’s records that she was vulnerable. This information should have been available and known to the responding officer at each stage, even without an ASB interview having taken place. However, when providing information to this Service as recently as February 2024, the landlord advised that there are no known vulnerabilities in relation to any of the residents living in the property.
The importance of record keeping, particularly in relation to vulnerabilities, cannot be overstated. These records not only enable the landlord to provide a better response, but they may provide vital evidence to partner agencies when dealing with cases of domestic abuse. The Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on KIM found that it was all too regular an occurrence for landlords to not appropriately recordthis type of information. This was evenif they had been advised multiple times and their procedures explicitly stated that vulnerabilities would form part of the decision-making process. The KIM report stated, “in the absence of that information, wrong decisions were made, those most in need were not prioritised and residents were treated insensitively.” One of the recommendations in the report is that landlords review their internal guidance about recording vulnerabilities. There is also a recommendation that landlords review existing databases for capability and capacity to record key data requirements, such as vulnerabilities.
The landlord is already aware of the Spotlight report on KIM and 2 unrelated Ombudsman investigations have found failings in relation to its record keeping in ASB cases (202103364 and 202120755). In response to those investigation reports, which post-date the resident’s complaint, the landlord has completed a self-assessment against the KIM report. In that self-assessment, a copy of which was provided to this Service in July 2023, the landlord indicated that it was reviewing what vulnerability data it collected and how this was recorded. Given the passage of time, the landlord should review and update its KIM self-assessment in light of the findings of this complaint investigation. When reporting back to the Ombudsman on this, an update should be included on the work it undertook to review how vulnerability data is recorded. If that work has not yet completed, it should advise the Ombudsman of the project timeframe for completion.
The landlord acknowledged in its stage 2 complaint response that it had failed in its handling of the ASB reports. It stated that had it followed the ASB policy, it would have had a better understanding of the resident’s situation and would have been able to respond differently. The landlord apologised and offered the resident £150 compensation. It provided an assurance that any further reports of ASB would be managed in line with the policy. It indicated that learning from its handling of this case would be incorporated into future training.
The landlord’s consideration at stage 2 of how it handled the ASB was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles which seek to be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes. However, the landlord has not explained how it reached the compensation figure of £150. Its policy on ‘Compensation and Goodwill Gestures’ allows for payments of up to £250 to be made where residents experience distress or inconvenience due to failures in service provision. There is also discretion to offer higher amounts in certain circumstances, including where there have been multiple service failures. The landlord has not indicated whether it gave consideration to exercising this discretion. It is the Ombudsman’s view that the compensation amount offered does not adequately reflect the number of failings in relation to the handling of reported ASB, or the impact these failings had on the resident. Given this, the level of compensation would be more appropriately set at £600, which is at the top end of the maladministration scale as set out in the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance.
Overall, the Ombudsman finds that there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB. The landlord missed opportunities to consider and record the resident’s vulnerabilities, and to tailor its response accordingly. At both the initial report stage and when dealing with the stage 1 complaint, the landlord did not keep proper records and it did not follow the steps set out in the ASB policy. While the landlord later acknowledged the issues with its record keeping, it failed to provide detail of measures that would be implemented to prevent similar issues in the future. The Ombudsman has therefore also found maladministration in the landlord’s record keeping.

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

The landlord’s ‘Transfers Procedure’ sets out the range of ways through which residents can move property. These include a choice-based lettings scheme, known as ‘Locata’, as well as management transfers whereby landlords can directly offer void properties to eligible residents. According to the procedure, management transfers are reserved for exceptional cases where the safety and wellbeing of a resident and/or a member of their household is at risk.
Residents who are registered for either Locata and/or management transfers are awarded a priority banding based on how their housing affects their circumstances. Band A is the highest priority group. The landlord’s ‘Allocations and Lettings’ policy sets out a range of reasons why a resident would be awarded a Band A. The reasons include that the resident faces imminent personal risk which is life-threatening by remaining in their home or faces an emergency situation.
The ‘Transfers Procedure’ contains a dedicated section on dealing with rent arrears. It clearly sets out that while residents with arrears are not usually eligible to transfer property until the arrears are cleared, an exception is made for those residents who are priority Band A or Band B. They may transfer through Locata or through a direct offer from the landlord, and their arrears balance transfers to their new account. This advice is also set out in the landlord’s ‘Allocations Procedure’.
The resident was awarded a Band A management transfer in October 2019. At this time, she was living in a refuge. When she returned to her property in March 2020 she had fallen into arrears. In line with the landlord’s policies, the arrears did not affect her eligibility for a management transfer, nor would they have prevented her from bidding on properties via Locata. However, it is evident from the March 2021 ASB record that she had been advised she was not eligible for a transfer by the landlord. The record stated that the landlord would refer her to a benefits adviser, “to help clear her arrears, so she is able to apply for a transfer.”
It is not known how long prior to March 2021 the resident had been given the incorrect advice regarding her transfer eligibility. It appears to have been provided by her housing officer, as this officer indicated in the stage 1 complaint response that she had given this advice to the resident on “a number of occasions.” It is not clear if the officer’s misunderstanding was because she did not know that the resident had Band A status, or if it was that she did know about the Band A status but misapplied the policy. Regardless, the advice provided to the resident was incorrect and did not comply with transfer and allocation procedures.
If the landlord had followed its ASB policy, the resident would have been formally interviewed when she reported the ASB in March and May 2021, and her records would have been checked. The stage 2 complaint response acknowledged that had the landlord followed these steps, it would have determined that the resident was vulnerable and fearful in her home. It stated that “most importantly”, this would have enabled the landlord to manage the transfer which was awarded as a result of the issues with both the former partner and the neighbours.
An opportunity to correct the previous advice and take appropriate steps to manage the transfer request arose in June 2021 when the landlord was processing the stage 1 complaint. However, there is no evidence that consideration was given at this stage to the resident’s priority banding or the transfer and allocation procedures. Instead, the incorrect advice was reiterated in the stage 1 response. A further opportunity to put things right arose in September 2021 when the resident asked to escalate her complaint. However, the landlord failed to follow its policy and did not escalate the complaint.
Limited information has been provided by the landlord about the management of the transfer request between September 2021 and the stage 2 response of January 2023. The landlord’s records indicate a 2 bedroom flat was offered to the resident in November 2021 and a 2 bedroom house in January 2022. The resident declined both as they were not suitable for her needs. The offers were made despite arrears remaining on the resident’s account. Therefore, it would appear that the landlord did recognise prior to the stage 2 investigation thatit was wrong to suggest the resident was not eligible to transfer due to her arrears.
It would have been reasonable once this mistake was identified for the landlord to contact the resident and advise her of the error, and to agree an approach for the management of the transfer going forward. There is no evidence this happened. The only additional information provided by the landlord regarding the management of the transfer between September 2021 and January 2023 is that during this time, the resident “repeatedly changed her mind about moving home”. The landlord indicated that due to this, and the fact the resident had declined 2 offers, it had taken the decision prior to January 2023 to wait for a suitable property before making a “final direct offer” to the resident.
Itwas only when thestage 2 response was issued thatthe landlordformally acknowledged its mistake and set out a plan to improve its communications with the resident regarding voids. It is unreasonable that this did not happen sooner. The ‘Transfers Procedure’ requires the landlord to review Band A residents’ situation at least every 6 months. One of the reasons for this is to, “identify and remove any barriers that may be preventing the customer from bidding for properties and moving.” Managers are required by the procedure to have oversight of these reviews. Furthermore, the landlord’s complaints policy requires that stage 1 complaint responses are reviewed by a manager before they are sent to the resident. It is therefore not clear why the housing officer’s misunderstanding in 2021 was not corrected by a manager prior to the stage 1 response being issued. The landlord should reflect on this and consider whether the processes it has in place for the supervision of priority transfer cases are sufficiently robust and implemented in practice.
When the stage 2 response was issued in January 2023, the landlord appropriately acknowledged the advice it had provided regarding the resident’s transfer eligibility was incorrect. It stated that it should have been in consistent communication with the resident about upcoming voids each week and if this had happened, it was “sure” it would have found the resident “something suitable and sooner.” The landlord put a plan in place to update the resident every 2 weeks on any suitable voids. The landlord also offered advice to the resident that she extend her search area in order to stand a better chance of securing a move. This was a reasonable response and plan of action in the circumstances. However, the compensation of £150 offered on account of the failings in handling the rehousing request was not sufficient. The landlord did not explain how it reached this figure. The amount does not adequately reflect the significance of the failings, which the landlord itself has acknowledged have had a lasting impact on the resident.
Overall, the Ombudsman finds that there has been maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’srequest to be rehoused. There weremultiple failures to correctly apply relevant policies and procedures between March 2021 and January 2023. The resident advised the landlord on numerous occasionsof the effect living at the property and being unable to move was having on her and her children’s mental health. The landlord stated in its stage 2 response that it was ‘sure’ the resident would have already found suitable alternative accommodation had it followed it policies and been in consistent communication with her regarding voids.It is evident from the information provided to this Service post-dating the stage 2 response, that there continues to be serious dispute and tension between the resident and her neighbours. In the latter half of 2023, the resident returned to a refuge for a period of time. The landlord advised this Service inFebruary 2024 that the resident wasstill looking for a suitable alternative property.
The landlord should therefore pay £600 compensation to the resident for the stress and inconvenience caused by its handling of her request to be rehoused. This is set at the top end of the maladministration scale as per the Remedies Guidance to reflect the multiple failings and the lasting impact these have had on the resident.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The landlord’s complaints policy defines a complaint as, “an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by the organisation, its own staff, or those acting on its behalf, affecting an individual resident or group of residents.” This is consistent with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) which emphasises that the word ‘complaint’ does not need to be used for a matter to be treated as such.
The resident’s contact with the landlord in March 2021 was recorded as an ASB report. That was appropriate as there is nothing to suggest the resident had expressed concern about the landlord’s handling of her ASB reports at this time. However, the email from the resident’s mother in April 2021 was clearly an ‘expression of dissatisfaction’ with how the landlord had responded to the resident’s requests for help while dealing with ASB from her neighbours and harassment from her former partner.
The landlord’s complaints policy states, “Anyone can make a complaint on your behalf… we will require written permission from you before corresponding with them.” The resident’s mother stated she was contacting the landlord on the resident’s behalf, with the resident copied into the email. The landlord failed to identify the correspondence as a potential complaint. It should have contacted the resident to confirm if she wished the landlord to process it as a formal complaint.
Following the Ombudsman’s involvement, the landlord opened a stage 1 complaint. A response was issued 9 working days later, which complies with the 10-working day timeframe set out in the landlord’s policy and the Code.
The complaints policy requires the landlord to contact a resident upon initial receipt of a complaint to ensure it understands the full extent of the complaint. The policy states that during this contact, the landlord should discuss any vulnerabilities or special requirements with the resident. There is no evidence that the landlord made any such contact with the resident after the stage 1 complaint was logged. This was a further failing in the landlord’s complaint handling. If the landlord had this initial discussion with the resident, it may have led it to understand why she was awarded Band A transfer status. It may also have found out that she was dyslexic. This meant that she struggled to follow the landlord’s advice to take written notes of the neighbours ASB. If the landlord was aware of this, it could have tailored the advice in the stage 1 response accordingly.
The landlord’s complaints policy requires an investigation to be carried out before a stage 1 response is issued. This includes checking case notes and other records. As outlined above, the landlord did not comply with its ASB policy in relation to record keeping. This should reasonably have been identified during the stage 1 complaint investigation. It should have prompted the responding officer to look into why the records were not available, to consider what other aspects of the ASB policy had not been followed, and to then take steps to apply the ASB policy to the resident’s case going forward. That did not happen.
It is unknown whether a manager reviewed the stage 1 complaint response before it was issued. This is a requirement of the complaints policy. A manager’s review should have meant that the deficiencies in the stage 1 response, in particular the incorrect advice regarding the resident’s transfer status, were identified at this stage rather than 19 months later.
As part of the response to the resident’s complaint that she was not receiving any support from the landlord, it stated, “you must make contact for me to know that you are in need of any help.” Similar wording was included in the stage 2 complaint response. The resident, understandably, took exception to this as she felt it implied she had failed to report incidents of ASB to the landlord. The resident pointed out that she had made many telephone calls to the landlord, but as the landlord itself acknowledged at stage 2, it kept no record of them.
There were some aspects of the stage 1 response that demonstrated good practice in line with the Code. For example, the landlord stated that the learning it took from the case was that it needed to ensure it was in contact with vulnerable residents more often than just once a year for an annual visit. The stage 2 response indicated that since the stage 1 response had been issued, the resident’s housing officer was in more frequent communication with the resident. The stage 1 response also adopted a problem-solving approach to addressing the arrears issue. The landlord offered the resident assistance to make a backdated housing benefit claim and said that if this was not successful, it would assist her to claim DHP and other applicable grants in order to clear her arrears.
On the matter of the arrears, despite the landlord supporting the resident in her application for backdated housing benefit, her claim was unsuccessful. The option of a DHP claim remained open at the time of the stage 2 response, but it appears that the resident either did not subsequently apply for DHP or was unsuccessful in making a claim. The landlord therefore took some money directly from the resident’s universal credit payments to clear the arrears. It then later waived the remaining arrears balance. The resident has indicated that an outcome she seeks in relation to this complaint is for the landlord to repay the money it took from her universal credit payments. However, the issue of how the landlord handled the arrears did not form part of the original complaint and is outside the scope of this complaint investigation. The Ombudsman cannot therefore determine in this report whether reimbursement of the universal credit payments would be appropriate. However, it is recommended that the landlord considers whether it has a clear policy setting out how arrears will be handled in cases where they have been accrued due to no fault of the resident.
Overall, the landlord’s handling of the stage 1 complaint was poor. As per its policy, the landlord should have advised the resident in the stage 1 response of her right to escalate the complaint to stage 2 if she wished for a review. It did not do this. The landlord then failed to follow its policy again when the resident replied to the stage 1 response and stated she was still not happy and did not believe resolution had been achieved. Despite her email being copied to at least 3 members of the landlord’s staff, the complaint was not escalated to stage 2. This was a significant failing. The review process within complaints handling provides an important oversight function as it involves a fresh look, usually by a more senior member of staff, at the substantive issues. Had the resident’s complaint been escalated in September 2021, this would have meant a review of the landlord’s management of the transfer would have taken place 16 months sooner than it did.
The escalation only occurred after the Ombudsman’s intervention a year later. When the Ombudsman first contacted the landlord to enquire whether a stage 2 response had been issued, the landlord responded that the complaint had not yet been through stage 1. It was only once the Ombudsman provided the landlord with a copy of the stage 1 response and the escalation request, that the landlord then logged the complaint as being at stage 2. This points once again to shortcomings with the landlord’s record keeping.
One of the many reasons record-keeping is important, is so that a landlord’s own oversight processes, such as complaint procedures and internal audits, can be effective. The officer carrying out the stage 2 investigation requested a stage 1 review pack from relevant colleagues, but this was never received. She commented, “Either way the pack would have limited information, so I have gone ahead and completed the review with what I had available. The housing officer has knowledge of this case but unfortunately nothing was recorded on the cases.”
The stage 2 response was due to be issued on 3 January 2023. The Ombudsman contacted the landlord on 4 January to query if it had been issued. An extension was then agreed as the landlord advised it had been unable to meet the deadline due to staff leave over Christmas. This was understandable but the landlord should have advised this Service and the resident sooner that it needed an extension. The new deadline for a response was 16 January, but the response was not issued until a week later on 23 January. Again, the landlord did not advise this Service or the resident that its response was going to be late. It did however sincerely apologise to the resident in the stage 2 response for the delay, which was appropriate redress in the circumstances.
The landlord advised the resident there was a data breach when it issued the stage 2 response. It told her that it had sent the letter via email to another resident in error. She expressed concern to the landlord regarding this as the letter contained a considerable amount ofsensitive personal information. How the landlord dealt with the data breach is a matter that falls outside the remit of this Service. Should the resident have concerns about how the matter was dealt with, she should contact the Information Commissioner’s Office accordingly.
Aside from the issues noted above, the stage 2 investigation and response complied with the landlord’s complaints policy and the Code. It addressed each ground of complaint, explained why the landlord had acted the way it did, recognised where there had been failings, apologised, and suggested the steps it would take to put things right. The response reflected the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles of being fair, putting things right, and learning from outcomes.
Overall, the Ombudsman finds that there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.Although the landlord apologised for its poor complaint handling in the stage 2 response and offered compensation of £200, it is the Ombudsman’s view that this amount does not adequately reflect the number or scale of the failings. The landlord’s handling of the complaint placed an unreasonable burden on the resident. She was required to contact the Ombudsman at each stage of the complaint process in order to get a response from the landlord. The failure to follow policy and thoroughly investigate the complaint at stage 1, and the failure to escalate at stage 2,prolonged the period of time before the landlord acknowledged shortcomings in its management of the transfer request and put steps in place to be more proactive in its communications with the resident regarding voids. Accordingly, thelandlord should pay the resident £600 compensation for the stress and inconvenience this caused. In line with the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance, this is at the top end of the compensation scale for maladministration given the number of failings and the significant and lasting impact they had on the resident.
The landlord stated in the stage 2 response that it would be using its handling of this case to reflect on how it could improve its communications with residents, handling of ASB, and its complaints handling. Some 6 months later, the landlord received a further complaint from the resident relating to the ongoing ASB issues and some repairs issues. While the handling of that new complaint falls outside the scope of this investigation, it is noted that the stage 1 response to the new complaint was issued 2 weeks late. The resident was only advised an extension was required when the response was already over a week late. The landlord should therefore ensure that when reviewing the findings of this investigation report, specific consideration is given to ensuring the complaints policy is adhered to in practice.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to 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 relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s record keeping.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord should:
1. Apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report. The apology should be made by a senior member of the landlord’s staff.
2. Pay the resident compensation of £1,800 for stress and inconvenience. This replaces the landlord’s original offer of £500 compensation. However, any compensation already paid directly to the resident may be deducted from this amount. The compensation is broken down as follows:
  1. £600 for the failures in the handling of the reported ASB.
  2. £600 for the failures in the handling of the rehousing request.
  3. £600 for the failures in its complaint handling.
3. Offer to meet with the resident to discuss her needs, and in particular what additional support or security measures can be provided to her while she remains in the property awaiting a transfer.
The above compensation should be paid directly to the resident and should not be paid into an arrears account, unless agreed with the resident.
Within 8 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord should:
1. Review and update its Knowledge and Information Management self-assessment in light of the findings of this complaint investigation report. When reporting back to the Ombudsman on this, an update should be included on the landlord’s work to review how vulnerability data is recorded. If that work has not yet completed, it should advise the Ombudsman of the projected timeframe for completion.
2. Review the processes it has in place for the management supervision of priority transfer cases to ensure they are sufficiently robust and implemented in practice.
3. Carry out a management review of this case to identify learning and improve its working practices. The review is to include its complaint handling failures to ensure that complaints are investigated and responded to in line with its complaints policy.

Recommendation

It is recommended that the landlord considers whether it has a clear policy setting out how arrears will be handled in cases where they have been accrued due to no fault of the resident, for example, due to living temporarily in a refuge.