Notting Hill Genesis (NHG) (202204826)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202204826

Notting Hill Genesis (NHG)

9 July 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 the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
2. request to be reimbursed for a shower screen.
3. request that the landlord paint her bathroom.
This service has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The property is a 3-bedroom house, and the resident holds an assured tenancy which started on 26 February 1996. The landlord has advised that the resident has vulnerabilities but that it does not hold specific details of her vulnerabilities.
On 4 June 2020 the landlord opened an ASB case for the resident following her report that a neighbour verbally abused her and was offensive about her disability. The resident reported further incidents on 18 June and 11 August 2020. Evidence showed that following a counter claim of ASB from the neighbour, on 7 August 2020 following a conversation with the police the landlord warned the resident about the behaviour of her visitors. In response to correspondence from an advocate for the resident, the landlord explained that it had investigated the incidents reported but there was no evidence of a hate crime. Nevertheless it was monitoring the situation with police support.
Between 11 July 2021 and 3 September 2021 the resident reported further verbal harassment from a neighbour and also claimed that the neighbour had stolen her post. Between 20 July 2021 and 20 August 2021 the resident’s advocate chased the landlord for an update on the actions it was taking on at least 3 occasions. On 20 August 2021 the landlord confirmed that it would investigate the reported incidents and provide an update to the advocate
On 27 January 2022 the resident complained that during the adaptation works in her bathroom the landlord disposed of her shower screen and replaced it with a shower curtain. The resident maintained that the curtain was a trip hazard and that the landlord had previously agreed to replace it with a shower screen. Evidence showed that the landlord attempted to phone the resident the following day but there was no response.
The landlord’s repairs log showed that on 2 March 2022 a works order was created to fill holes and make good the bathroom wall following the replacement of a radiator. The repairs order was to patch paint to match the existing paint as best as possible. On 7 March 2022 the contractor noted that it could not find a matching colour paint on the day, and it would need to return to the property. In a message to the landlord dated 9 April 2022 the contractor explained that it had not found an exact colour match for the paint so matched it as best as it could.
On 10 June 2022 following contact from this Service, the landlord said that it would log the resident’s complaint in respect of the landlord’s handling of ASB and outstanding repairs. It said that if a stage 1 response had not already been sent, it would open a stage 1 complaint within 10 working days. Alternatively it would escalate the complaint to stage 2 if more appropriate to do so.
We contacted the landlord again on 17 August 2022 and asked it to respond to the following complaint:
1. its response to the resident’s request to be reimbursed for a shower screen.
2. its failure to paint the resident’s bathroom.
3. its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
The landlord acknowledged the request and advised it would respond within 10 working days. It responded to the stage 1 complaint on 4 October 2022. The landlord set out its understanding of the resident’s complaint and responded to each point in turn saying:
1. It was not liable for the disposal of the shower screen and the resident should direct her request to the occupational therapy team that gave the instruction for the works.
2. It was not responsible for decoration but agreed to repaint only the affected area in the bathroom as a goodwill gesture.
3. The evidence provided by the resident in respect of the missing post did not meet the threshold for the landlord to investigate via its ASB policy.
The resident raised a stage 2 complaint via this Service on 8 March 2023. The resident explained that by way of resolution she wanted the landlord to:
1. deal with the reported ASB in accordance with the landlord’s policy.
2. fully decorate her bathroom and reimburse her for the cost of replacing the shower screen.
The landlord issued a stage 2 response on 4 April 2023. It responded to each point in turn, apologised for its failings and offered a total of £275 compensation for the issues investigated in this report. In its response it explained that:
1. it had investigated the resident’s report of stolen post, and discriminatory remarks from a neighbour in line with its ASB policy. It stated that following its investigations it issued a warning to the neighbour. It accepted that it had failed to give the resident a conclusive outcome of its investigation and offered the resident £75 as a goodwill gesture and by way of apology for the stress and inconvenience it caused.
2. it had been clear with the resident that it would not reimburse her for the cost of the shower screen. However it accepted that it failed to acknowledge the effect on the resident of the disposal of a personal belonging and it apologised for this.
3. as a goodwill gesture it would paint the affected wall in the bathroom but could not guarantee that the paint colour would exactly match the existing colour.
4. it accepted that it should have supported the resident to escalate her complaint to stage 2. It apologised for this failure and offered £150 compensation and a further £50 for its delay at stage 2.

Post internal complaints process

The landlord has said that since this complaint it has taken various steps to improve its handling of reports of ASB, and its complaints handling.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

When investigating complaints about ASB, it is not the role of the Ombudsman to investigate the incident(s) or establish whether the behaviour took place as alleged. Rather, it is to look at the evidence which is available and determine whether the landlord handled the situation in line with its policies and procedures. This investigation is limited to the consideration of the actions of the landlord in the context of its relevant policies/procedures as well as what was fair in all the circumstances of the case. The Ombudsman cannot tell the landlord to take action against neighbours.
We acknowledge that the resident has informed us of the exacerbated health issues she has experienced, which she says are as a result of the landlord’s actions. The Ombudsman cannot draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This would be more appropriately dealt with as a personal injury claim through the courts or the landlord’s liability insurer (if it has one). This is a legal process, and the resident should seek independent legal advice if she wants to pursue this option.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB

The landlord has explained that it has not been able to locate all the documents relevant to the issues raised in this part of the investigation and requested by this Service. These include the following:
1. copies of ASB risk assessments
2. details of any attempts it made to resolve the reported ASB.
3. details of any support offered to the resident.
4. copies of referral to other agencies.
The absence of the above records has hampered this investigation. It has made it difficult for this Service to assess the landlord’s actions in response to any reports of ASB it had received.
The landlord operates both a hate incident policy and procedure and an ASB policy and procedure, and the steps it should take when an incident is reported is similar in both. The landlord should:
1. log the incident on its system.
2. contact the resident within a predetermined timescale (1 working day if the resident is at immediate risk, 5 working days if there is no serious risk.
3. investigate and gather information.
4. if appropriate share information with the police.
5. agree next steps with the resident and create an action plan.
6. contact the alleged perpetrator.
7. maintain records of the investigation.
8. take the appropriate action, once the investigation is complete. If the most appropriate action is to close the case, this should be discussed with the resident.
We have seen evidence that the landlord opened an ASB case file in respect of a report made by the resident of verbal harassment on 4 June 2020, and that it updated the case file with subsequent incidents on 18 June, 7 August and 11 August 2020. The landlord shared information with the police, as set out in its race hate procedure. However the landlord has failed to provide:
1. any evidence showing the information it gathered to aid its investigation.
2. a risk assessment.
3. an action plan or agreed next steps.
4. records of the investigation it carried out.
5. evidence that it discussed actions, including closing the case, with the resident.
This was not appropriate. The landlord failed to follow its own ASB policy, which clearly states that ‘Staff must ensure all cases of ASB are recorded and monitored effectively on our online systems to ensure appropriate action is taken based on information provided by residents and agencies.’
Evidence showed that on 3 September 2020 the landlord responded to the resident’s advocate detailing action it had taken up until that point. It stated that it had followed its internal ASB procedure, assessed what happened and the potential risks. The landlord suggested that both parties should consider mediation. This Service has not seen any evidence of the actions the landlord alluded to.
The landlord failed to confirm with any degree of certainty if the resident’s reports were being treated as ASB or a neighbour dispute and was unable to provide a full casefile when requested by this Service. For example although the landlord refers, in its stage 1 and stage 2 responses, to action it took in respect of the reports of ASB, there is no evidence to confirm this.
The resident made a further report of verbal harassment on 11 July 2021, and evidence showed that this was followed up with the landlord by the resident’s advocate. We acknowledge that on 21 July and 20 August 2021 the landlord responded to the advocate and promised it would provide an update on the situation. However, there is no evidence to show that the landlord provided an update as promised. It is not clear to this Service what action, if any, the landlord took in respect of the resident’s report of harassment.
We understand that a counter claim of harassment was made, and consequently the actions the landlord could take would have been limited. However, the landlord’s ASB policy is clear that where the incident is considered a neighbour dispute, the landlord should deal with the issue under its resolving neighbour dispute guidance. This guidance states that the landlord should keep clear records of the disputes, actions taken and the outcomes. It also suggests the landlord should provide advice and guidance to both parties to achieve resolution. There is no evidence to suggest that the landlord performed any of the suggestions set out in the guidance. This is not appropriate. The landlord failed to appropriately investigate the resident’s concerns or demonstrate that it had taken appropriate action.
In addition to the reports of verbal harassment the resident also reported that her neighbour stole her post. The landlord considered the information the resident provided by way of evidence, and we understand that it was unable to conclude that it met the threshold of ASB. The landlord’s actions were appropriate and proportionate given the limited evidence it had.
In its stage 2 response on 4 April 2023 the landlord acknowledged that it had failed to provide the resident with a conclusive outcome of its investigation. By way of apology and in recognition of its oversight and the stress and inconvenience it caused the resident, the landlord offered £75 compensation. While it was appropriate for the landlord to apologise for its failures and offer compensation, this Service is not satisfied that the offer made is proportionate to the failures identified. The gaps in record keeping have meant that the landlord has not been able to demonstrate that it complied with its own policy and procedure or what steps it has taken in its overall management of the issues raised by the resident. The landlord failed to appropriately manage the resident’s expectations, which would have been of detriment to the resident as she had no clear indication of the steps the landlord was taking to resolve her concerns.
The landlord’s remedy of £75 falls within the lower scale of its compensation award for a medium impact failure as set out in the landlord’s compensation policy. In considering the remedy offered by the landlord this Service has considered that the landlord was aware that the resident was vulnerable. We have also reviewed the landlord’s own compensation policy and in particular its award guide, which allows for an amount between £125 and £250 to be awarded where there has been ‘a serious failure in service delivery over a period of time which has caused a significant level of distress and inconvenience to the resident.’ The policy also allows for a higher level of compensation to be awarded were there have been multiple failures or where the resident has experienced exceptional hardship. In making an increased offer of compensation this Service has taken account of both the landlord’s compensation policy and our own remedies guidance, which recognises that some residents will have vulnerabilities that may put them at a disadvantage compared to residents who are not vulnerable. While we cannot draw conclusions on the causation of the impact on health and wellbeing, we can recognise the impact the issue complained about had on a vulnerable resident, through the remedy that we make. We therefore consider a payment of a further £250 to be proportionate and in line with our remedies guidance for a maladministration finding where the landlord has failed to fully address and consider the detriment to the vulnerable resident.
Given the failings identified above we find maladministration of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to be reimbursed for a shower screen.

Evidence provided showed that the landlord was aware of the resident’s concerns regarding replacement of her shower screen with a shower curtain on or around 15 November 2021. On 27 January 2022 the resident raised a further concern about the shower curtain and maintained that she had been told that the landlord would provide a shower screen. This Service has not seen any evidence to indicate that the landlord agreed to provide a shower screen. Evidence showed that the landlord called the resident the following day but did not get a response and subsequently closed the case.
The landlord responded to the resident’s request to be reimbursed for the shower screen in its stage 1 and stage 2 complaint responses. It explained that the shower screen was removed as part of adaptation works to the bathroom and although the works were undertaken by the landlord, they were done so on instruction from the occupational therapy team and as part of its aids and adaptations procedure. As part of its stage 2 response it accepted that there had been a lack of discussion regarding the removal of the shower screen and that this had caused the resident distress, for which it apologised.
It was appropriate that the landlord apologised for its failings. However, it was unreasonable of the landlord not to acknowledge that the shower screen had originally been purchased by the resident, and that it had disposed of an item belonging to her without adequate reason for doing so. It was reasonable for the resident to request to be reimbursed for her shower screen.
The landlord’s compensation and goodwill gestures policy explains that a liability claim is when a resident suffers an injury or financial loss and wants to be compensated for such loss. In such an event the landlord should signpost the resident to the insurance team. Furthermore, the policy sets out that the landlord can make a goodwill gesture where it recognises that it has not provided the best service.
The resident was clear that she was seeking compensation because the landlord had disposed of an item belonging to her. It is conceivable that this was a financial loss to the customer. Consequently the landlord should have referred her to its insurance team as set out in its policy. Alternatively it could have considered whether its failing met the criteria for consideration of a goodwill gesture, in line with its policy. However, it failed to do so. This was not appropriate. While this Service acknowledges that the resident was not without a shower curtain. It was not reasonable for the landlord to dispose of her screen without her knowledge, and inappropriate that it failed to refer her to its insurance team. Additionally it would have been reasonable for the landlord to consider a goodwill gesture for its recognised failings. Given the failings highlighted above we find a service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to be reimbursed for a shower screen. In making an award of compensation this Service has considered the landlord’s compensation policy and compensation award guide which allows for a compensation payment of up to £50 to be awarded to a resident where service standards have not been met which has caused some inconvenience to the resident.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request that the landlord paints her bathroom.

The landlord’s responsive repairs policy lists internal decorations as the resident’s responsibility unless the area has been affected by a leak in which case the landlord will paint the area.
The landlord provided evidence that it attempted to paint the affected bathroom wall. It explained further in its stage 1 and stage 2 responses that it was prepared to paint the wall with as close a match as possible to the existing paint colour but could not guarantee an exact match. It added that this offer was still available to the resident should she choose to accept it.
The landlord acted appropriately and in line with its repairs policy by offering to paint the affected wall. It is clear in its repairs policy that internal decoration is the resident’s responsibility. Consequently, there was no requirement for the landlord to offer to paint all the walls. Given that there was no damage to the rest of the walls it would not have been appropriate or best use of the landlord’s resources to redecorate the whole room. The landlord has confirmed that its offer to paint the affected wall is still available. Therefore, this Service finds reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request that the landlord paint her bathroom.

The landlord’s complaint handling

Following correspondence from this Service the landlord confirmed on 10 June 2022 that if a stage 1 response had not already been given it would open a stage 1 complaint within 10 working days. Alternatively it would escalate the complaint to stage 2, if more appropriate to do so.
The landlord failed to do either of these things until further contact from this Service on 18 August 2022. The landlord acknowledged a stage 1 complaint on this date and advised that it would respond within 10 working days. However, it failed to respond within this timescale. While we acknowledge that the landlord contacted the resident on 1 September 2022 to advise there would be a delay in responding, this was on the tenth working day. The landlord should have recognised that it needed additional time to respond to the complaint ahead of this date and acted accordingly. Additionally, the landlord failed to tell the resident when she should expect to receive a response. This was not appropriate and not in line with the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code (the Code).
The landlord responded at stage 1 of its complaints process on 4 October 2022, this was 81 working days after its initial acknowledgement on 10 June 2022, and 32 working days after it acknowledged the complaint for the second time on 18 August 2022. This timescale far exceeds the timescale set out in the landlord’s own complaints policy and the Code. This is not appropriate and was of detriment to the resident, as it delayed her escalation of the complaint, thus delaying a resolution.
Additionally, in its stage 1 response the landlord failed to acknowledge the delay and subsequently failed to apologise for it. As set out the Code, where something has gone wrong a landlord must acknowledge this and set out the actions it intends to take to put things right. The landlord failed to acknowledge or apologise for the delay and failed to offer any remedy. This was not appropriate. The landlord failed to recognise the inconvenience to the resident of the delay.
In its stage 2 response the landlord responded to each issue raised as part of the complaint and acknowledged that it had failed to recognise and respond appropriately to the resident’s dissatisfaction of its stage 1 response. It was appropriate that the landlord acknowledged and apologised for this failing. It was also appropriate that it made an offer of compensation. The landlord also recognised that it had missed opportunities to find a resolution to the resident’s concerns, and that it had failed in its communication with the resident.
This Service acknowledges that the landlord apologised for its poor complaint handling and made an offer of £200 compensation (£150 for its poor complaint handling and £50 for its late response at stage 2). However, the compensation offered by the landlord was not proportionate for the impact on the resident of the failings identified. The delays in responding to the resident’s complaint at both stages were significant and of detriment to her as it prevented her from reaching a suitable conclusion. Consequently we find maladministration of the landlord’s complaint handling.
In considering the remedy offered by the landlord this Service has reviewed the landlord’s own compensation policy. In making an increased offer of compensation this Service has taken account of both the landlord’s compensation policy and our own remedies guidance and reviewed the impact of the landlord’s failures on the resident. We therefore consider a payment of a further £100 for the landlord’s overall failure to respond to the resident in a timely manner at both stages of the complaints process and the inconvenience that caused to be proportionate and in line with our remedies guidance for a maladministration finding.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme we find:
1. maladministration of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
2. service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to be reimbursed for a shower screen.
In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Scheme we find reasonable redress of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request that the landlord paint her bathroom.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme we find maladministration of the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to:
1. Apologise in writing for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay directly to the resident a total of £675, which comprises of:
  1. The £275 offered in its stage 2 response. If this has already been paid to the resident it should be deducted from the total and evidence of the payment provided to this Service.
  2. An additional £250 for the detriment caused to the resident by the landlord’s failure to appropriately demonstrate how it had handled her reports of ASB.
  3. £50 for the landlord’s failure to acknowledge that the disposal of the resident’s personal belongings (namely her shower screen) caused her distress.
  4. An additional £100 for the detriment and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s failure to respond to her complaints in a timely and appropriate manner.
3. Given that the resident has reported that the ASB is ongoing, the landlord is ordered to contact the resident within 4 weeks of the date of this report and arrange to carry out appropriate investigations, as set out in its ASB policy.
4. The landlord must provide evidence of compliance with the above orders to this Service within 4 weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

Since the conclusion of this complaint the landlord has explained to this Service that has made improvements in the areas discussed in this report. We will therefore not be making any further recommendation in regard to its complaint handling or handling of ASB.
We also acknowledge that following conclusion of a previous determination, the landlord confirmed that it has a working group who meet regularly to discuss its approach to record keeping and any learnings that it can take forward. It has carried out self-assessment, which it reviews every 6 months. It is recommended that the landlord provides a copy of its most recent self-assessment to this Service within 4 weeks of the date of this report.