Notting Hill Genesis (NHG) (202215820)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202215820

Notting Hill Genesis (NHG)

28 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 the landlord’s:
1. Response to the resident’s reports of issues with the heating at the property.
2. Handling of the resident’s transfer applications (in 2019/2020 and in 2022).
3. Handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
4. Knowledge and information management.
5. Complaint handling.

Jurisdiction

What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to this service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42 (a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspect of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:
1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of issues with the heating at the property.
Paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that: “The Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure.”
The resident’s complaint exhausted the landlord’s process in March 2023. However, in further correspondence to this Service she has complained about the landlord’s handling of heating issues at her property. There is no evidence that these aspects of her complaint have been raised directly with the landlord or exhausted its complaints procedure and so they are outside of our jurisdiction to consider in accordance with paragraph 42 (a) of the Scheme. If the resident would like to pursue this aspect of her complaint, she should initially raise it with the landlord and complete the internal complaint process.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord since 29 June 2020. The property is a 1-bedroom flat. The resident lives at the property with her adult son who is also her carer. The landlord has recorded that the resident suffers with depression.
The resident previously lived in a 2-bedroom property with her son. She moved to the current property following ASB reports and a transfer application which was submitted in November 2018.
The landlord administers access to a local authority choice based letting rehousing scheme via an online database called Locata. Locata operates using the local authority’s banding system which categorises applicants based upon their personal circumstances and housing need. Rehousing applicants bid on advertised properties and are prioritised based upon their position on the rehousing list.

Policy and relevant legislation

The landlord’s management transfer policy states as follows:
1. Management transfers are given either A or B banding depending on the urgency of the move.
2. If the resident has been awarded a band A, the Housing Officer should inform them that they will have six months to bid for a property and that in the meantime, the landlord will look for a suitable property and try to make a direct offer.
3. Direct offers may be made in the following circumstances:
  1. band A management transfer.
  2. household members, and others.

The landlord’s allocations and lettings policy sets out the following:
1. The landlord operates a household members scheme which aims to relieve overcrowding by:
  1. rehousing an adult member of an overcrowded household into a 1-bedroom property or;
  2. incentivising the release of family sized properties by offering separate smaller properties to the tenancy holder(s) and any adult household members.
2. The landlord operates incentives scheme for under-occupation. Where the resident is under-occupying their property and wants to move to a smaller one, the resident will be provided with a £1000 incentive, an additional £500 for each bedroom and a further £1500 for decoration/improvements. Residents who are downsizing will be given a higher priority on Locata and therefore their wait will be shorter than normal, depending on the availability of suitable property.
The landlord’s ASB policy sets out as follows:
1. Following a report of ASB, the landlord will interview the complainant, assess the impact, set clear expectations, explain confidentiality, agree next steps and contact frequently.
2. After the interview, the landlord will send to the complaint within 5 working days what was discussed and agreed.
3. Where the complainant is believed to be vulnerable an ASB risk assessment form should be completed.
4. The landlord will work collaboratively with external agencies, local authority and policy to tackle incidents of ASB.
5. Once the investigation is completed the complaint should be updated on the outcome. Records of the investigation should be kept detailing what steps were taken and the outcome.
The landlord has 2 stages of its complaints process. At stage 1 it will respond within 10 working days (it may attempt a “quick fix” where reasonable within 10 working days of the complaint being raised). If the resident remains unhappy with the outcome at stage 1, the landlord will escalate the complaint. At stage 2 the landlord aims to respond within 20 working days.
The Housing Ombudsman Complaint handling code (The Code) requires the landlord to investigate in full all aspects of the resident’s complaint.

Summary of events

On 23 November 2018, the resident submitted a transfer application with her son as a joint tenant living at the property. The reason for the application was noted as severe noise disturbance and downsizing. On the application for Locata and in the medical self-assessment form from 5 December 2018, the resident stated that she wanted to be rehoused with her son.
The resident noted that she had been bidding for a property for a considerable time and raised her concerns with the landlord. She stated that she had been told by her housing officer that if she agreed to downsize her chances to get a property would improve. As such, she agreed to downsize from 2- bedroom to 1- bedroom property. The transfer approval form was signed by the landlord in July 2019 and the resident was provided with band A priority and eligibility to bid for 1- bedroom properties. On the form, the landlord noted that the resident’s son should be removed from the application.
On 15 August 2019, the resident wrote to the landlord stating that she had placed bids for 1-bedroom properties in areas where she and her son could live but she was unsuccessful and had been outbid from applicants having a lower priority band.
For the period August 2019 until October 2019, the resident was in touch with the landlord to seek support with her biding as she stated she had found it difficult to find a 1-bedroom property. On 9 October 2019, the landlord stated the resident should continue bidding and it would make a further direct offer (this Service has not seen any information of a previous direct offer).
There was a gap in the correspondence between October 2019 and June 2020. In June 2020, the resident’s current property had become available, and the resident was offered the tenancy (it is unclear whether this was a direct offer).
The resident raised concerns about her son not being on the tenancy agreement on 17 June 2020. On the same day (17 June 2020) in an email (provided to this Service by the resident), the landlord reassured her that her son would be part of the household “as he was now”. The landlord also stated that it did not normally add children to the tenancy agreements, but her son would be entitled to succession should something happen to her. The landlord advised her to keep the email as evidence should someone question her son’s tenancy rights.
The resident signed the current tenancy on 29 June 2020 and on 10 July 2020, the landlord provided an incentive payment for downsizing. It stated that in accordance with its transfer incentive procedure it offered a financial incentive of £1000 and a further £500 for the additional bedroom.
The resident stated that at the start of the current tenancy she had asked about whether there was any ongoing ASB, and that the landlord had confirmed with her there was none in the block. She stated that two weeks after she had moved in another tenant advised her there was an ongoing issue with noise and alleged aggressive behaviour by a neighbour above the resident’s property. This Service has seen no evidence of these statements.
There is a gap in the landlord’s file for the period July 2020 until March 2022. However, the resident advised that she had started reporting ASB to the landlord a few months after she had moved into the property. The landlord’s file suggested that the resident applied for a transfer application in March 2022 due to her health deteriorating from the ASB she had been experiencing. She was awarded the highest priority and eligibility to bid for a 2-bedroom property.
For the period from May 2022 until June 2022, the landlord’s file suggested that the resident reported on a number of occasions issues with the neighbour above, as follows:
1. On 20 May 2022, the resident reported her and her son were suffering with breathing issues due to recent incidents of smoke coming from the flat above, potentially from burning scented sticks. The resident stated that she had previously sent photos of the sticks being burned in the communal area and the smoke this had created.
2. On 25 May 2022, the resident reported the neighbour above being drunk, jumping on the resident’s ceiling for hours, and shouting. The resident stated that she could not cope with this. She made further reports of smoke.
3. On 26 May 2022, the resident reported noise form the flat above during unsociable hours.
4. On 3 June, the resident reported alleged illegal activities, related to drugs, of people visiting the flat above and provided photos of a man carrying a small plastic bag.
On 16 June 2022, the landlord visited the neighbour to discuss the alleged ASB. However, this Service has seen no evidence of the landlord’s follow up or its communication with the resident.
On 4 July 2022, the resident reported an increase in banging from the flat above and smashing on the ceilings. On 27 and 31 July and 4 August 2022, she made further reports of noise and visitors allegedly taking drugs in the communal area. On 4 August 2022, the resident also reported that she had informed the police about the ongoing concerns of ASB from the neighbour. The resident explained in her correspondence to the landlord that the ASB was affecting her mental health.
On 14 August 2022, the resident informed the landlord that it had contacted the local authority’s environmental team. She reported that for the last four days she had been unable to properly breathe in her property as the fumes (not clear from what) had been coming into the property even with the windows closed. On the following day (15 August 2022), the resident reported again that the neighbour was burning scented “stuff” and she could not breathe due to the smell being really strong. The resident also reported visitors and said she felt she wanted to “run away”.
On 9 September 2022, the landlord wrote to the local authority about the lack of support offered by adult social services in regard to the neighbour above and informed them it would proceed with eviction proceedings.
The resident raised a formal complaint on 14 September 2022 using the services of an advisory organisation. She stated as follows:
1. She moved froma 2- bedroom to 1-bedroom property as a result of ASB her and her son had been experiencing in the previous property. She believed that she had not been supported by the landlord as she had been asked to downsize. However, the property was too small.
2. She was not informed of the next steps and that the property had been provided only for a specific period of time (it is not clear from the file what she meant by this).
3. The resident also complained about the handling of her ASB at the current property.
4. She also asked the landlord for her housing options as a split household or for both her and her son, as due to the stress caused by the current ASB experience her son had become her only carer.
5. She was dissatisfied that she had to move again as she had already invested £4000 in her property believing it was her permanent transfer. She asked the landlord if it was possible to move the alleged perpetrators but had been told that this was confidential information.
6. She wanted a reimbursement for the cost of the refurbishment of the flat or the neighbour to be moved.
On 15 September 2022, the landlord confirmed it had raised a complaint and responded on the day as a “quick fix”. It said as follows:
1. The landlord had many conversations with the resident and had directed her to her GP to deal with the stress while it had been handling the neighbour’s ASB.
2. It would ask its data protection team whether it could disclose any information about the ASB, or the resident could ask the local authority team. However, this was currently confidential.
3. It asked why the resident had been moved into 1-bedroom property in June 2020. It acknowledged her current situation and that her application for 2-bedroom property had been approved in March 2022 and she had been given the highest band A priority. The resident had the following 2 options:
  1. to bid for a 2-bedroom property with her son and then to apply for a household member scheme so that her and her son would both be able to move to two 1-bedroom properties, or:
  2. to apply at that stage to the household member scheme.
On 17 September 2022, the resident responded stating as follows:
1. The landlord had not told her about the household member scheme during her previous transfer, nor that her current property would be temporary.
2. She had put a lot of effort and money into making the property home.
3. She requested an explanation of why she had been told to downsize in 2020.
4. She believed the landlord knew about the ASB in the current property but did not do much to inform her of this when she had initially moved.
On 21 September 2022, she further raised concerns about downsizing and asked the landlord why she had not been offered the two 1-bedroom properties during the previous transfer.
The landlord responded at stage 1 on 29 September 2022. It stated as follows:
1. The resident had reported noise nuisance in her previous property and had expressed a wish to move. The resident had been given band D at the time, which was the lowest priority. Her son had not been living at the property with her at the time and the housing officer offered the downsizing scheme which had provided a higher priority and an incentive of £1500. The transfer application filled in and signed on 23 November 2018, stated that the resident wished to downsize as she no longer needed a 2-bedroom property.
2. The resident was supposed to live at the current property until her circumstances changed which had happened and she had been put back on the transfer list entitled to bid for a 1-bedroom property as she had made herself intentionally overcrowded. However, she was awarded band A due to the current ASB complaint.
3. With regards to the ASB, it reiterated its response from 15 September 2022. It added the resident should continue to report the ASB to the police.
4. It provided escalation rights.
Later that day (29 September 2022), the resident’s son responded in a few emails to the landlord and said that the resident had experienced ongoing ASB related to banging and the police were often involved. He stated that the resident’s mental health and sleep had been severely affected and she did not want to meet with the landlord until the issue was resolved. He requested proof of the stage 1 findings and intended to find his own correspondence as he stated the landlord had provided “false information”.
On the following day (30 September 2022), the resident asked for an escalation of her complaint. She explained as follows:
1. She felt particularly distressed from the landlord’s response that she could only bid for a 1 bed property. She stated that prior to the landlord’s stage 1 response she had been bidding for 2 bed properties.
2. The landlord had stated that she could now not bid for 2 bedrooms as she had made herself intentionally overcrowded. This was not correct as she had always been living with her son.
On 4 October 2022, the resident’s son wrote to the landlord to ask for further information about a particular 2 bed property he had seen on Locata. He also raised some concerns about issues with radiators (no information was provided as to what exactly).
On 6 October 2022, the resident in further dissatisfaction to the landlord’s stage 1 complaint stated as follows:
1. She had chosen to downsize following the advice of the landlord that her son would stay a household member. She was not provided at the time with the option of her and her son bidding for two 1 bed properties. On the contrary, at the time, the landlord had advised her that her son as homeless could apply for a property, but the local authority had said this was not correct advice.
2. She had been paying for storage since she moved into her current property due to no space.
3. She had asked the landlord whether there had been any ongoing ASB at the current property before she signed the tenancy, because the reason for leaving the previous property was ASB. The landlord had told her there was no ASB.
4. A few weeks after their move a neighbour told the resident that there had been ongoing ASB by the neighbour above. In a few months the resident and her son had started experiencing the ASB behaviour by the neighbour above related to drinking, shouting, noise in unsocial hours, and aggressive behaviour. The police and local authority had also been involved. The resident’s mental health had deteriorated, and she had contacted her MP. She was aware that the neighbour had been served with a warning.
5. She had decorated and put her own money into the current property and wanted the landlord to support her in the next move as she did not have the money to refurbish again. Her son was not working because he had become her carer due to her mental health worsening. The landlord knew of the situation and that her son had been a tenant and was living with her.
6. The current situation with the aggressive outbreaks of the neighbour had considerably affected her health. The mediation in the past (involving the police and the housing officer) had not helped and the “aggressive slams and vibration of the ceiling from the jumps” was getting worse. The neighbour had been emptying ashtrays on her balcony. The neighbour made racist remarks at her and her son and had shouted and banged every time her son was cooking. This had caused great upset and distress to her and her son.
7. The landlord had installed CCTV in the building and the resident received a video doorbell after an incident her son had experienced with the neighbour.
On 7 October 2022, the landlord informed the resident that after investigating the nature of her transfer in 2020 it changed her current application from 2-bedroom availability to 1 bedroom. On the same day the resident’s MP wrote to the landlord and said the transfer to a 2-bedroom property was agreed previously and it did not seem good practice to overturn this decision.
The landlord confirmed its decision after discussing it with a senior member of staff. It stated that it offered her the options before as it had not been privy to the information from the previous address. It added that the resident had not had to downsize but she had taken the option for a quick move and the incentive money. As such, it considered she had made herself intentionally overcrowded and it needed to amend her eligibility to a 1-bedroom property.
On 12 October 2022, the landlord reviewed the neighbour’s case and explored options. It noted that the neighbour was extremely vulnerable.
On 19 October 2022, the resident provided the landlord a copy of her email from 15 August 2019 about the bidding process, which stated that both the resident and her son were looking to bid for 1-bedroom properties. On the same date, the resident’s psychiatrist wrote to the landlord and explained the resident and her son had always been living together. They added that her son was the only person who “had kept her safe from a major health impact”. They also stated that the housing situation had affected the resident’s mental health considerably.
On 4 November 2022, the resident’s MP requested a review of the decision. It raised to the landlord’s attention the resident’s email from 17 June 2020 where, after viewing and accepting the current property, the resident emailed the landlord saying, “I cannot sign that tenancy agreement my son is not on it.” It also quoted the landlord’s response from the same day (as per the above). The MP stated that resident had signed the agreement reliant on the landlord’s reassurance that her son would be a household member in her current tenancy.
On 10 November 2022, the landlord wrote to the resident’s MP. It stated as follows:
1. It had discussed the issue with the resident’s previous housing officer who stated the resident had informed them that her son would not live with her in her current property.
2. An agreement should not have been provided to add her son to the tenancy as a household member, as the property was not suitable for the resident and her son. The landlord would not intentionally move a tenant to a smaller property.
3. After it had investigated her previous move, it had become aware that the resident was not eligible to bid for a 2-bedroom property and it concluded that she could only bid for a 1-bedroom property. As such an error was made in March 2022 when she was allowed to bid for a 2-bedroom property.
4. Due to the misinformation, it agreed for the resident to continue biding for a 2-bedroom property if she reimbursed the £1500 to the landlord. It acknowledged providing the wrong information in relation to her application in March 2022 when she had been told she could bid for a 2-bedroom property.
5. It offered £50 for the service failure it identified related to the second application decision. No escalation rights were provided in this correspondence.
The landlord’s file suggests that the resident stopped reporting issues with the neighbour in November 2022. The resident later reported that she had not seen her neighbour since October 2022.
In December 2022, the resident contacted this Service for assistance and discussed the position of the complaint within the landlord’s process.
On 7 February 2023, this Service requested an escalation of the resident’s complaint. This Service forwarded to the landlord the resident’s:
1. Request to move to a bigger property.
2. Concerns about its the handling of the ASB.
3. Concerns about discrimination based on her mental health.
On 15 February 2023, the landlord acknowledged the complaint at stage 2 with the resident and copied in this Service. It stated it would respond within 20 working days.
On 27 February 2023, the resident wrote to the landlord to further raise her concerns about the inconsistent information provided during the previous transfer process about downsizing and the household member scheme. She added that she had not been told that her current property would be temporary, and she had made a lot of repairs that she could not take with her, as such she requested compensation. She also complained about the current biding process and that she had not got a property for over a year regardless of also being on 3 home swap websites.
On 28 February 2023, the landlord confirmed again to the resident that the complaint was escalated to stage 2 of its process. On the same day the resident responded that she had previously replied to the landlord’s stage 1 response in September and October 2022 but had not received a response, which had seriously affected her mental health. The landlord stated the resident should not use “derogatory language” to which the resident responded that the landlord had not even read her emails as she had not used any derogatory language.
The resident chased a response on 10 March 2023 and provided copies of its previous escalation emails from 30 September and 6 October 2022.
The landlord responded at stage 2 on 15 March 2023. It stated as follows:
1. In order to get a quick move from her previous property, the resident agreed to downsize saying to her previous housing officer that her son would be moving to live independently.
2. In her previous correspondence, the resident had stated she had received advice that her son would have been added to the current tenancy. The landlord could not find such communication. However, if this was the case, the advice would have been wrong, and the landlord would have made the resident intentionally overcrowded which would be against the agreement for downsizing.
3. With her son moving in to live with her in her current property, the resident had made herself intentionally overcrowded. The communication with her previous housing officer had flagged up the concern about her being overcrowded. The decision to add her son as a household member should not have been accepted as this had resulted in the landlord accepting the resident was overcrowded.
4. In March 2022, her transfer application was accepted, and she had been offered band A. The resident was considered eligible to bid for a 2-bedroom property and access to Locata had been provided. After its stage 1 investigation this was reconsidered, and her eligibility was changed to a 1-bedroom as she was a single occupant.
5. In recognition of the landlord’s mistake (it did not detail which mistake), the landlord decided to keep the current banding and property access to Locata. It offered the resident the option of bidding for a 2-bedroom property or bidding for two individual 1-bedroom properties.
6. It apologised for the wrong information and for not managing her expectations. It explained that it had recently implemented a system for review of transfer applications.
7. With regards to the ASB, it acknowledged the resident had reported an ongoing issue with noise and other ASB. It had encouraged the resident to report the issue to the environmental team and the police. The last reports were in February 2022, 26 May 2022 and 11 October 2022, respectively of which the noise team had contacted her directly. Additionally, the landlord had visited the resident on 6 May 2022 with the local authority and police and had advised her to continue reporting issues to the police. The landlord had been to court on 3 occasions (in June, September and November 2022) with regards to the neighbour’s behaviour. In the most recent hearing, the judge had dismissed the case as there was not enough evidence to support any alleged ASB. The landlord attached a noise log sheet and asked for any current issues to be reported to the resident’s current housing officer.
On 21 March 2023, the resident wrote to the landlord and copied in this Service. She stated that she had not received any contact from the landlord following its stage 2 response. Her account on Locata had changed to now being able to bid for a 2-bedroom property but she had still not received any information about the options under the household member scheme. She was also dissatisfied that the landlord had not considered the “stress and inconvenience” its mistakes had caused her and requested compensation. She stated she had lost her trust in the landlord.
In November 2023, the resident reported to this Service she had been dissatisfied with the heating issues related to having no central heating and radiators. She stated that due to her mental health she could not allow access to the landlord. She reiterated the issues in her email to the landlord of 6 October 2022.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident had raised a number of issues related to the length of time she had been biding for a property and her priority banding. The choice-based lettings scheme and the associated eligibility and banding procedures are administered by the local authority. As such any complaint about these matters are outside the scope of this investigation and would be a matter for the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman. While this Service is unable to comment on the resident’s eligibility, it is within our remit to consider the management transfer issues and the advice and support provided to the resident throughout her application. There is discretion as to the limitations and as such this Service will consider whether the landlord’s advice and handling of the resident’s transfer application was reasonable and whether its response was in line with the dispute resolution principles of being fair, putting things right and learning from the outcome.
The resident also raised concerns that her housing situation affected her mental health. It is recognised that the situation was distressing for the resident. The timeline shows it has been ongoing for a considerable period of time. Where the Ombudsman identifies failure on a landlord’s part, we can consider the resulting distress, inconvenience and loss of amenity. Unlike a court, we cannot establish liability or whether the landlord’s action or lack of action has had a detrimental impact on a resident’s physical or mental health. Nor can we calculate damages. In other words, we cannot determine whether the landlord was responsible for any illness or injury. These matters are likely better suited for consideration by the courts, or as a personal injury claim through the landlord’s liability insurer.
The resident also stated that the landlord had treated her unfairly and discriminated based on her mental health. This is a serious allegation ad although the Ombudsman is unable to reach legal findings, we can consider the landlord’s handling of her vulnerabilities, and its response to her concerns around discrimination. However, the resident may wish to seek legal advice if she wants to pursue her concerns around any breach of human rights or equalities legislation.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s transfer applications.

The resident provided evidence to this Service that she was living with her son at the previous property. In her correspondence with the housing officer from 15 August 2019 and 17 June 2020 she informed the landlord about her intention to move together with her son to the current property. There was no evidence provided to this Service at any stage that the resident’s son was living away from the previous property or that they did not have any intention to live together. In her email of 17 June 2020, the resident even raised concerns that her son would not be included in the tenancy to which the landlord responded that he would keep his rights as a household member.
This Service has seen no evidence that during this previous transfer, the landlord had provided accurate advice as to the transfer options of the resident and her son. The resident was not provided with advice about the household member scheme and was only given the option to downsize which was clearly not suitable for her and her son’s situation. It is appreciated that the resident at the time was in a hurry to move away from ASB and the landlord was trying to assist her. However, by letting her bid for a smaller property and live in it with her son, the landlord acted unreasonably and not in line with its allocation policy. The landlord should have explored other options for them moving together by providing a direct offer in line with its transfer policy or by making them eligible to bid for a 1-bedroom property each. However, this Service has seen no evidence of this.
The landlord acknowledged to this Service that the advice provided about downsizing during the resident’s initial transfer application from her previous to the current property put her in a position of “overcrowding”. As a result of this advice, the resident had lived in an unsuitable property for over 45 months At the time of this investigation, the resident was still living with her son in a 1-bedroom property.
The advice provided that her son would be able to succeed her, and he would still be a household member in the current tenancy was inaccurate. This left the resident to believe that by downsizing she would still keep her son living with her and that he would still have full tenancy rights as in her previous tenancy. This was not a fair and customer focused approach and later during the complaint’s timeline created additional frustration. It is also noted that the resident had continuously reported issues with her mental health deteriorating and further reports of ASB. As such, a further transfer was approved in March 2022, when allegedly the landlord informed her of the option in line with its household member scheme. This should have occurred much sooner.
At stage 1, the resident requested a response as to why she had not been provided with this option in her previous transfer. However, in its investigation, the landlord could not identify its error (which was likely due to lack of communication kept during the transfer process) or find evidence of its commitments made at the time as to her son’s tenancy rights. As such, it put the blame on the resident by saying she had made herself “intentionally overcrowded”. Additionally, it changed her eligibility from a 2 to 1- bedroom property, as it stated the 2-bedroom eligibility was a mistake it had made in her second transfer application from March 2022. This caused great distress to the resident who was expecting a different outcome and answer, as to the household member scheme issues. The resident reasonably believed her son had kept his tenancy rights and as such her frustration was understandable.
In its further investigation and response to the MP from November 2022, the landlord acknowledged mistakes and a lack of any correspondence from the period of the initial application (this will be further investigated in the knowledge and information management). However, it was clear that it did not refer to the inaccurate advice from 2019/2020 but rather to the error from March 2022. It offered £50 compensation. As resolution, it suggested the resident refund the incentive money in order to return her eligibility to a 2-bedroom property. The landlord could not demonstrate that it had reviewed all the correspondence provided by the resident and taken into consideration its previous commitments and that it had caused the resident to move to an unsuitable property due its advice and action. This was a significant failing, unfair and not a customer orientated approach.
Additionally, it did not consider her concerns of using the incentive money to decorate the current property. In line with the incentive money scheme, the landlord can in addition to the downsizing include money for refurbishment and decoration. The incentive paid to the resident only provided money for downsizing and the extra bedroom. The landlord, however, did not demonstrate that it had fully considered and investigated her concerns of refurbishment expenses, but rather unsympathetically asked that she refund the money, for an error of no fault of her own.
At stage 2 from 15 March 2023, the landlord stated that it did not have the previous transfer correspondence, but it did not exclude the option it had made the resident “intentionally overcrowded”. While it admitted a possibility of failure, it is of concern that it did not consider the impact of its mistakes to the resident in relation to:
1. making her intentionally overcrowded and letting a property not suitable for her and her son;
2. her concerns of paying for storage and the expenses of refurbishment;
3. the length of time she and her son lived overcrowded in the property;
4. the distress its advice at stage 1 had caused her;
5. the impact she reported on her mental health.
In this final response, in recognition of its failures, the landlord offered to return her eligibility to bid for a 2-bedroom property with her son or the option of the household scheme for two 1-bedroom properties. It also stated that it had now moved the transfer process to a specialist team.
When there are failings by a landlord, as is the case here, the Ombudsman will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord (apology, compensation and details of lessons learned) put things right and satisfactorily resolved the resident’s complaint in the circumstances of the case. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles; be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes. This Service will also consider the resulting distress and inconvenience and the resident’s circumstances will be considered.
While it was a reasonable step to provide the resident the option to bid for a 2-bedroom property or to allow her and her son to bid for two 1-bedroom properties each, this was not enough to put things right. The landlord did not consider the inconvenience caused by the length of time they had lived in a 1- bedroom property which it knowingly put them in. The resident and her son also missed an opportunity to potentially find two 1-bedroom properties during the initial transfer application. Additionally, it did not address the resident’s reports of the refurbishment expenses, or the distress its inaccurate and inconsistent advice had on her and her health.
As such, due to the multiple failures and the impact on a vulnerable resident there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s transfer applications. The resident had been living for 45 months (from June 2020 until March 2024) in an over occupied property, which she reported had severely impacted her mental health. Additionally, the landlord’s responses had caused her considerable distress and reasonable doubts in its ability to appropriately handle her applications. This normally commensurates with a finding of severe maladministration. In this case the landlord had taken some steps to put things right like the reinstatement of the banding/bidding and attempted a change of its processes. Nevertheless, this was not enough as the inconvenience and the distress caused to a vulnerable resident was significant and for prolonged period of time. As such, the compensation should be at the high end as per the Ombudsman remedies guidance. This Service considers it fair to order a total of £2850 compensation for the landlord’s failures:
1. £600 for the misleading information and the loss of opportunity for the resident and her son (to potentially find two 1-bedroom properties in 2019/2020).
2. £2250 for the inconvenience caused to the resident of having to live in a 1-bedroom property with her son for 45 months, following the landlord’s advice that the resident could downsize with her son (45 months at £50 per month) and the financial hardship this put her in having to pay for a storage.
An order is also made for the landlord to contact the resident, to apologise for her experience due to its failures and to assist her and her son in their transfer application, including exploring the option of providing a management transfer, direct offers or two 1-bedroom properties.
The landlord should also address further the resident’s reports of refurbishment of the current property and her reports of paying for storage since June 2020, and where necessary reimburse her for any expenses she had incurred.

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

It is not disputed by both parties that the reports of ASB had started prior to March 2022 when the resident applied for a transfer. There is very limited information about the initial reports or the steps the landlord had taken to deal with the resident’s reports. It was clear that it had worked with the police and the local authority and investigated the issue. The resident acknowledged that the landlord was working with the police and installed CCTV in order to manage the ASB from the neighbour above. The landlord also stated that it had initiated eviction and had 3 hearings in relation to this, but the judge found there was insufficient evidence. It was clear that the landlord had taken some steps and had followed up on the resident’s reports.
This Service has seen multiple reports of the resident’s reports of ASB for the period May 2022 until October 2022. However, this Service has not seen a record of the landlord’s responses, and this will be further discussed in the landlord’s knowledge and information management. Additionally, there is no evidence that the landlord had completed a risk assessment when the issues were initially reported. This was not in line with its ASB policy which requires the assessment of the vulnerabilities of the parties involved prior to any ASB investigation.
In raising her complaint to the landlord, the resident stated that she had asked at the start of the current tenancy whether there were any ASB issues at the new property and that she had been told there were none. It seems unlikely that the landlord was not aware of any such issues at the time, however, this Service has seen no clear evidence of this. While it is difficult to establish whether the landlord was aware of any ASB at the time, it is of concern that it did not address this in its complaint responses. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have considered the sensitivity of the resident’s circumstances when letting the property and to have acknowledged the importance of adopting a customer focused approach. However, it did not do so.
For its failure to follow its ASB policy, or to communicate appropriately and respond to the resident’s ASB reports there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s ASB reports. Nevertheless, it is not disputed that the landlord took considerable steps to deal with the ASB and even offered a transfer as part of the resolution. As such, this Service considers compensation of £350 for the landlord’s handling of the ASB complaint, to be fair. The landlord should also understand and acknowledge the importance of providing sensitive lettings to a resident who has moved as a result of ASB.

Knowledge and information management

As part of this investigation, the Ombudsman requested records from the landlord such as communication regarding the initial transfer application, assessment forms, telephone notes regarding the complaint issues, and communication in relation to the ASB. The landlord did not provide these.
With regards to the evidence provided for the initial application, the landlord stated in its responses that it had not seen any communication. In this case the communication had a vital role for the resident’s decision to downsize and the landlord’s commitment as to her son’s tenancy rights. It is evident that the landlord’s record keeping affected the accuracy of its responses and its ability to put things right for the resident.
While the landlord provided the Ombudsman with the resident’s reports of ASB, the lack of any responses, assessment forms or further action taken is concerning and a failure on the landlord’s part. Good record keeping is vital to evidence the action a landlord has taken and failure to keep adequate records indicates that the landlord’s ASB and transfer processes are not operating effectively. It would also have assisted the landlord to understand the needs of the resident and whether the transfer was suitable for her after she had left a property where she experienced ASB.
An improvement in the landlord’s record-keeping would result in significant benefits for both it and residents. It would enable accurate information to be shared across teams and with residents, which would improve the landlord’s response and service it provides. It would also help with our investigations by improving our understanding of the situation when the complaint is brought to us.
For the reasons set out above, there was maladministration in the landlord’s record keeping. As part of the case review, this Service has ordered the landlord to provide the steps it will take to improve its record keeping of the transfer application process and the ASB handling.

Complaint handling

The resident raised her complaint on 14 September 2022. On the following day, the landlord acknowledged it and attempted a “quick fix”. While a “quick fix” was reasonable in relation to the part of the complaint about the resident’s options for housing, the landlord could not investigate the previous transfer application issue. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 29 September 2022, which was reasonable timeframe and within 10 working days of the acknowledgement.
The resident escalated her complaint on 30 September and on 6 October 2022. However, there was no evidence that the landlord acknowledged those escalation requests. The resident sought assistance from her MP who asked the landlord on 4 November 2022 to escalate the complaint. On 10 November 2022, the landlord only responded to the MP rather than escalating the complaint. It did not provide any escalation rights in its response. This was confusing for the resident as to the position of her complaint within the landlord’s process.
Following contact from the resident, on 7 February 2023, this Service asked the landlord to clarify the position of the complaint and respond in line with its complaints policy. The landlord sent its acknowledgement at stage 2 on 15 February 2023, and responded at stage 2 on 15 March 2023. There were unreasonable delays in its complaint handling as it took over six months for the resident’s complaint to complete its process.
Additionally, the landlord missed the opportunity to address several issues raised by the resident, relating to the refurbishment expenses for her current property, the expenses for storage due to downsizing and her concerns of discrimination based on her mental health. It is noted that the Ombudsman cannot make legally binding decisions of a breach of human rights or assess this. However, it is expected that the landlord thoroughly investigates any such concerns raised. In this case the landlord could not demonstrate that it had considered her requests. As such, it could not follow its obligation to fully investigate each complaint raised.
Furthermore, in her correspondence from 28 February and 10 March 2023, the resident provided copies of her escalation requests from September and October 2022. Nevertheless, at stage 2, the landlord missed an opportunity to review its complaint handling in line with her concerns and as such it did not put things right for her.
For the above reasons, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint. In line with the Ombudsman remedies guidance for cases where the landlord failed to acknowledge its failings and has made no attempt to put this right compensation of £350 is considered fair.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 42 (a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspect of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:
1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of issues with the heating at the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
1. Severe maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s transfer applications (from her previous and current properties).
2. Maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
3. Maladministration by the landlord in respect of its knowledge and information management.
4. Maladministration by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord failed to provide accurate advice to the resident in relation to her housing options during the transfer application in 2019/2020 and misled her. As such, the resident missed an opportunity to find two 1-bedroom properties for her and her son at the time. Regardless of its attempt to provide a quick move, it allowed her to downsize with her son and to live in an unsuitable property for a prolonged time. Its handling of her second transfer application from March 2022 caused additional distress by moving her eligibility from a 2- bedroom to a 1-bedroom property. Additionally, it failed to address her concerns of expenses she incurred due to refurbishment and storage costs.
The landlord did not provide complete evidence to demonstrate that it had adhered to its ASB policy. While this Service has seen evidence of cooperation with the local authority and the police in relation to the neighbour’s behaviour, the landlord could not demonstrate reasonable communication and responses to the resident’s reports. Furthermore, it did not evidence that a risk assessment was conducted on the resident. As such, it could not demonstrate that it had adhered to its ASB policy.
The landlord did not keep a robust record of the resident’s transfer application and the communication in relation to it, nor in its handling of ASB. This affected its own and this Service’s investigation.
The landlord did not acknowledge the resident’s escalation requests and as such failed to escalate her complaint in a timely manner. This delayed the complaint process unreasonably. Additionally, it did not address all aspects of the resident’s complaint relating to discrimination and reimbursement of costs incurred.

Orders and recommendations

The landlord is ordered within 4 weeks of the date of this report to arrange for a senior member of staff to apologise for the failures identified in this report.
The landlord is ordered within 4 weeks of the date of this report to visit the resident and take a full account of issues experienced with the transfer application, offer a management move or make a direct offer if necessary, giving regard to rehousing both the resident and her son In two 1-bedroom properties. A copy of any action plan should be provided to the resident and the Ombudsman.
The landlord is ordered within 4 weeks of the date of this report to pay the resident compensation totalling £3550. Compensation should be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any arrears. The compensation should be reduced by the £50 already offered in the response to the MP, if paid. As such the total compensation comprises of:
1. £2850 for the misleading information provided during the landlord’s handling of the resident’s transfer applications and the inconvenience and distress this had caused her and her son.
2. £350 for the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident caused by the landlord’s handling of the ASB complaint.
3. £350 for the time and trouble incurred by the resident as a result of its complaint handling failures.
The landlord is ordered within 4 weeks to conduct a further investigation into the resident’s reports of costs incurred for refurbishment and storage and provide evidence of the outcome to the resident and this Service.
Within 8 weeks, the landlord is ordered to conduct an investigation into the resident’s concerns of discrimination and provide a copy of the outcome to the resident and this Service.
The landlord’s leadership is to review the issues highlighted in this report. Within 8 weeks the landlord should provide the Ombudsman with a report summarising identified improvements, which should also be cascaded to its relevant staff. Topics for inclusion include the landlord’s:
1. Approach to transfer applications and capacity to promptly deal with transfer applications.
2. Record keeping, with emphasis on communication during transfers and ASB records, including sensitive management transfers.
3. Complaint handling in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint handling code, with emphasis on escalation requests.