Notting Hill Genesis (NHG) (202200147)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202200147

Notting Hill Genesis

3 May  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 landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about:
   1. The conduct of the landlord’s staff.
   2. Record keeping concerning a previous survey.
   3. The landlord’s response to the reports of outstanding repairs to the kitchen and bathroom.
   4. Advice relating to the resident’s responsibility for repairs.
   5. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaints handling.

Background

2. The resident is an assured shorthold tenant of the landlord with a one-bedroom  flat in a converted house. The landlord has no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident.
3. The resident raised a complaint on 14 September 2021 about her housing officer, the housing officer’s manager and an historic inspection of the kitchen and bathroom flooring at the property which she said the landlord had not logged. The resident then added a further issue regarding information she was sent about the landlord’s responsibility for repairs and improvements to the flooring in her kitchen and bathroom.
4. The landlord responded on 1 November 2021, apologised for the delay in the complaint response and offered £100 compensation for its failure to respond within its published timescales. Having reviewed the communication between the resident and its staff, the landlord offered £100 to reflect a lack of empathy shown during a challenging time for the resident.
5. The landlord acknowledged that it had not recorded a visit in November 2020 by a Surveyor and the Housing Officer and offered £30 for any distress caused by this. The landlord also clarified the policy relating to the flooring base layer, which was the landlord’s responsibility to maintain, and floor coverings, which are the resident’s responsibility.
6. Following the resident’s request to escalate the complaint the landlord reviewed the complaint and issued a final response letter on 4 February 2022, when it offered a further £100 for the delay in the stage two complaint response. The landlord apologised for any confusion regarding the resident’s responsibility for flooring and offered £50 for its failure to inform her of the correct policy. The landlord increased the offer in respect of its failure to keep records of the surveyor’s visit  to £250, being £100 for distress, and £150 for poor record keeping.
7. The landlord detailed learning from the complaint in respect of record keeping, feedback regarding communication around decants, and training to ensure more empathy with residents. The landlord confirmed the increased total compensation of £600. The resident escalated the issue to this Service as she said the landlord’s actions had continued to have an impact on her, including losing her job. She also said that the landlord was still not keeping correct records.

Jurisdiction

8. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
9. After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42 (f) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspect of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction: The landlord’s response to the reports of outstanding repairs to the kitchen and bathroom.
10. Paragraph 42 (f) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme says that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, concern matters where a complainant has or had the opportunity to raise the subject matter of the complaint as part of legal proceedings.
11. Since the stage two complaint response relating to the current Ombudsman investigation in February 2022, the resident has initiated a legal disrepair claim through the courts, with the support of solicitors.
12. This aspect of the complaint is therefore outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. The other aspects of the complaint are considered below.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

13. The resident has raised three recent complaints with the Ombudsman, two of which were combined, and an Ombudsman investigation report issued in July 2022 under the references 202107927 and 202121730. That investigation covered matters relating to major repairs and the decant in June 2021. The Ombudsman investigation found that the landlord had already made an offer of redress which was considered satisfactory in relation to the complaint about the kitchen pipework, the plug socket and the handling of the decant. This investigation does not therefore reinvestigate any of the issues investigated in the July 2022 investigation.
14. This investigation concerns only the issues at paragraph one above.

Assessment

Staff conduct

15. The landlord has not supplied any guidance or policy in respect of handling resident’s communication or customer service specifically. However, its residents would reasonably expect to be treated with respect and kindness.
16. In this instance, emails have been provided which illustrate some communication difficulties. It is understood that the resident expressed the wish to only communicate by email. However, it did mean that discussions around the termination of the decant were sometimes unclear, and there were occasions when the landlord staff were more confrontational than was necessary. There were implied threats of possession action which would understandably cause extreme distress, particularly when the resident in this case was away from her own home.
17. That said, the landlord has, through the complaint process, reacted positively. The first response in November 2021 acknowledged that the tone of the communication with the resident could have shown more empathy, albeit the content was technically correct. The landlord offered £100 in respect of this as it had seen that improvements could be made in the way it supports residents through the decant process.
18. This shows a willingness to take ownership of mistakes, and to learn from them. In the final response, the landlord said that it had retrained staff to avoid a repeat in the future. This aligns with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles, to put things right for residents, be fair, and learn from outcomes.
19. The sum of £100 compensation awarded is in keeping with the landlord’s guidance for discretionary payments related to inconvenience or distress where there has been medium impact on the resident which would not be manageable for the resident. The sum is also within the range of awards set out in the Ombudsman’s remedy guidance for cases of service failure which had an impact on the complainant, but which may have not significantly affected the overall outcome for the complainant. Given the upset that would likely be caused by the implication of some of the emails from the landlord, the sum already awarded is appropriate and fair in all the circumstances.

Record keeping concerning a previous survey

20. It is not clear from the resident’s complaint what the implications were of the landlord having no record of the November 2020 visit by the Housing Officer and surveyor. It would be reasonable to expect that the landlord would have a report from a visit this recent, and the first complaint response suggests that the resident had raised this issue on several occasions.
21. The landlord explained that historically it had several databases which held information that it had consolidated. It also said that staff were trained to record each interaction with residents, although there were occasions when this did not happen. The landlord initially offered £30 for the distress caused by this failure of record keeping. The final response recognised that the issue had been raised several times by the resident and increased the compensation to £100 for the distress caused, plus £150 for poor record keeping. The landlord also said that it had retrained staff to ensure that records were kept of visits with surveyors, to avoid this happening again.
22. This response indicates a willingness from the landlord to learn from complaints and put steps in place to improve the service it provides.
23. The landlord’s compensation guidance suggests sums up to £250 where there is high impact for example where there has been a serious failure in service standards, the issue was clearly an injustice causing a significant level of distress and inconvenience, was persistent over a long period or involved an unacceptable number of attempts to address an issue. The sum of £250 is also within the range of awards set out in the Ombudsman’s remedy guidance for incidents of maladministration where there was no permanent impact on the resident.
24. There is no evidence as to what the effect of the failure of the landlord to properly keep records of the previous surveys was. However, it is fair to assume that there would reasonably be a degree of frustration felt by the resident in knowing that an earlier survey had been undertaken, but for which the landlord had no record. The sum of £250 is proportionate to the circumstances here.

Advice about repairs

25. The resident’s assured tenancy agreement effective 1997 says at section A4 of the conditions of tenancy that the landlord agrees to keep in good repair the structure and exterior of the building including floors and ceilings.
26. The resident handbook says at page 14 that the landlord is responsible for inside walls, floors and ceilings. Page 15 says that the resident is responsible for repairs to floor coverings (e.g., carpets, lino, tiles, wooden floors). This is repeated in the responsive repairs policy appendix A and B which lists the landlord and tenants’ responsibilities, respectively.
27. It is not stated what incorrect information was given to the resident in respect of this issue. There is an email from landlord staff dated 15 September 2021 where staff have tried to call the resident to discuss the complaint issues. The resident had said in her complaint of 14 September 2021 that her concern was the historic kitchen and flooring renewal inspection which the landlord was then unable to locate.
28. In its response dated 1 November 2021, the landlord listed one of the complaint issues as being information the resident was sent on the landlord’s responsibility in carrying out repairs and improvements to flooring in the kitchen and bathroom. However, it does not say what that information was or why it was inappropriate. The letter goes on to say that following the schedule of works on the property, the kitchen, including flooring, was replaced. It then says that the bathroom was noted to be in a good condition at the time of the inspection and the flooring was ‘upgraded.’
29. In any event, the landlord apologised for any confusion around this subject in its final response, where it noted that the kitchen flooring was repaired and offered the resident £50 for its failure to inform the resident of the correct policy.
30. As the kitchen flooring was replaced, it appears over and above the landlord’s liability,  there is no evidence of what the detriment to the resident was of the incorrect information she was given. Had the resident been advised that the bathroom floor would be replaced, then this appears to have been in error, and the landlord has made a fair offer to reflect the inconvenience of this. In fact, the resident was previously notified in the tenancy agreement, and the landlord has published in its resident guide and the repairs policy, that it was not liable to repair the flooring. The mistake was in the advice given, not the failure to replace the flooring.
31. The landlord’s willingness to resolve this element of the complaint is noted, and there is no evidence to suggest that any higher sum of compensation would be payable in this respect.
32. Complaints handling
33. The landlord’s complaints and compliments policy effective 2021 and the resident handbook say that complaints will receive a full written response within 10 working days at stage one, and 20 working days at stage two.
34. In this case, the initial complaint regarding the landlord’s staff and the historic survey was submitted on 14 September 2021 and not responded to until 1 November 2021. The landlord acknowledged this delay and offered £100 compensation to reflect this. There is no evidence to confirm the date the resident submitted the request to escalate her complaint, but the stage two response dated 4 February 2022 apologises for a further delay in the final response and offers an additional £100 for this.
35. The first complaint response was 24 working days more than the 10 working day timescales published by the landlord. The delay at stage two is not known, but the resident had 20 working days from the stage one response to request a review. request a review. Therefore the latest date the resident could have requested a review was 29 November 2021. The landlord sent its stage two response 4 February 2022 and therefore its response was at least 26 working days later than the 20 working day response timescale published by the landlord.
36. The compensation sum of £200 is within the range of awards set out in the Ombudsman’s remedy guidelines for instances of maladministration that have had no permanent impact upon the resident.
37. In this light, the sum of £100 for each of the periods of delay by the landlord in answering the complaint is proportionate to the time and trouble incurred by the resident as a result of the landlord’s complaint handling failures.

Determination

38. In accordance with paragraph 53 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the resident prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily in respect of the landlord’s handling of:
    1. The conduct of the landlord’s staff.
    2. Record keeping concerning a previous survey.
    3. Advice relating to the resident’s responsibility for repairs.
    4. The associated complaint.
39. In accordance with paragraph 42 (f) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the complaint about the landlord’s response to the reports of outstanding repairs to the kitchen and bathroom is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.