Notting Hill Genesis (NHG) (202221064)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202221064

Notting Hill Genesis (NHG)

16 August 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 about issues with her rent/online account details;
2. response to the resident’s reports about asbestos;
3. complaints handling.

Background

The resident moved into the property of the landlord through a mutual exchange in or around October 2022. The landlord is a registered provider of social housing. Throughout the period of the complaint, the resident was pregnant, which the landlord was aware of.
Upon moving into the property, the resident requested relevant information relating to her tenancy so she could set up her various accounts, such as council tax and parking. On 19 October 2022, the landlord advised that it would provide her with all relevant information, including a barcode to allow her to pay her rent. The resident chased this up on several occasions throughout the period of the complaint. On each occasion, the landlord either advised it would provide the rent card information shortly or just didn’t respond to the question.
On 27 October 2022, the resident reported some repair issues in the property, including a broken banister, wallpaper peeling, and a damp smell. The resident also noted she was pregnant and suffered from asthma. On 10 November 2022, the resident further noted that her details had not been uploaded on the landlord’s system, which meant she could not log and track repairs online.
In or around November 2022, the resident arranged for her own workman to inspect the property. The workman raised concerns about asbestos, which the resident subsequently asked the landlord about on 10 November 2022. She also noted the distress this was causing her. The landlord asked the resident for the workman’s report; however, the resident advised that there was no specific report and the concerns had been raised after the workman observed holes in a cupboard containing what appeared to be asbestos.
On 14 November 2022, the landlord raised works for an external asbestos inspection and advised the resident someone would attend that day. On 15 November 2022, the resident advised that no one showed up. The inspection was subsequently rearranged for 18 November 2022. The Ombudsman notes that, around this time, various other works were raised relating to other repair issues in the property. The Ombudsman also notes that the resident had to chase updates for these works on a number of occasions.
The landlord received an asbestos report from the contractor on 30 November 2022. The report concluded that there was “medium” risk asbestos present. It also determined that this had been temporarily sealed with paint. The report recommended that this asbestos be removed.
A further inspection took place on 9 December 2022, during which, an air test was conducted. The property failed the air test, and the landlord took immediate action to decant the resident to a hotel. The landlord gave assurances that all food and related expenses would be covered.
On 11 December 2022, the resident expressed her concern at the length of time she had been exposed to asbestos. She advised that, even if the property was repaired, she felt uncomfortable returning. The landlord subsequently agreed to offer a management move and began looking for appropriate alternative properties. It also measured the resident’s expectations that it may take some time to find a suitable property and that it would only make one offer.
Throughout the period of the decant, there were frequent occasions where the resident made multiple requests for updates before receiving a reply. The communications also show that it took several requests before reimbursement payments were made. There were also occasions where the resident had to chase the landlord for confirmation that the decant hotel was being extended prior to receiving a response. The resident has advised this service that during this time, she was moved between multiple rooms, which caused her distress.
The landlord has provided this service with its internal communications from this period. These communications show that there were detailed and complicated arrangements needed for the repair works to the property, the arrangements for the decant property, and for the payment of expenses. However, it is not evident that the resident was kept updated about these complications in a timely manner.
On 8 December 2022, the resident made a formal complaint about the issues she had experienced. The landlord acknowledged this on the same day and advised that it would provide a complaint response within 10 working days.
On or around 7 January 2023, the resident was moved into a serviced apartment while the works were ongoing. The resident reported that the apartment was not clean, and so the landlord arranged for a deep clean prior to her moving in.
Around this time, the landlord apologised for the experience the resident was having. It also confirmed that all expenses would be covered and that it would replace items in the original property that needed to be disposed of.
The landlord provided its stage one response on 13 January 2023, which included the following:
1. Regarding her rent account, it acknowledged that it had not provided the information as it should have. It apologised for its poor communication and noted that her details had been corrected on 24 October 2022. It offered £150 for this error.
2. It also noted it had delayed in uploading her details to its online system but noted that this had also been corrected.
3. Regarding the asbestos, it provided a breakdown of the events and noted that her property would be available to return to from early February 2023. It also noted that it was continuing to look for a new permanent property for the resident.
4. It reiterated that it had agreed to cover expenses and replace lost items.
5. It apologised for its poor service and the impact this had had on the resident. It also noted that it was using this case to learn from and improve its service going forward.
6. It offered £250 for the resident’s distress and inconvenience and a further £250 for its poor service delivery.
7. It finally noted that its stage one response had been unreasonably delayed, for which it offered £250. In total, it offered £900 compensation.
Following its stage one response, the resident chased the landlord for updates throughout January 2023, including information about when it would pay the outstanding expenses. It often took a number of communications from the resident before the landlord responded.
On 1 February 2023, the landlord provided the resident with transfer application forms. Its internal communications show it also tried to expediate the completion of repair works with its contractors.
Given the resident’s ongoing expressions of dissatisfaction, the landlord escalated the complaint on 10 February 2023. It advised that it would provide a stage two response by 1 March 2023. It also advised that it was arranging for a surveyor to visit the property to identify any other repair issues. Throughout February 2023, the parties discussed the replacement of the resident’s items which had been disposed of, and the resident provided relevant receipts.
On 5 March 2023, the surveyor provided a report for additional works and the landlord began obtaining quotes. The works were approved on 27 March 2023; however, the resident noted that some of her personal items had been damaged while the works were being carried out.
The resident continued to make multiple requests for updates. On 6 April 2023, the landlord confirmed that the works would be completed by 11 April 2023. It also advised that a suitable alternative property had been found and arranged a viewing. The resident visited the alternative property on 11 April 2023 but found that building work was ongoing inside. She expressed her dissatisfaction that she had been asked to attend a property she considered to be unsafe. The landlord subsequently agreed to make a further offer for an alternative property.
The landlord provided its stage two response on 21 April 2023, which noted the following:
1. The landlord reiterated its acknowledgement that its service had fallen short in relation to initially providing rent information and uploading the resident’s details to its system. It reiterated its apology and offered a further £200 compensation.
2. Regarding the ongoing asbestos issues, it reiterated its communication had been poor and acknowledged that the resident had suffered distress and inconvenience. It therefore offered a further £250 compensation.
3. It advised that the property was now ready to return to and confirmed that it was arranging a viewing for a further alternative property.
4. It further noted that its stage two response had been delayed, for which it offered £250. In total, it offered £700, in addition to the £900 offered at stage one.
The resident expressed concerns about returning to the property as it was dirty and her furniture needed to be moved back, which she could not do alone. She also expressed her dissatisfaction with the landlord’s offer of compensation. The landlord subsequently arranged for a clean of the property.
On 26 April 2023, the landlord provided an updated offer of compensation. In addition to the £1,600 it had offered in its formal complaint responses, it offered a further £1,000 for the inconvenience caused by the temporary accommodation, £250 for its overall poor handling of the case, and £350 for additional distress and inconvenience. It also offered £800 towards any damage caused during its repair works. It further noted it had paid £8,640.30 towards lost items and expenses.
The resident moved back into the original property on 2 May 2023, before subsequently moving to a new property in or around February 2024.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

Throughout the period of the complaint, the resident has raised concerns about how the issues she reported and the landlord’s subsequent service delivery may have impacted her physical and mental health.
The Ombudsman is unable to make a determination that the actions or omissions of a landlord have had a causal impact on a person’s health. Such a determination is more appropriate through an insurance claim or by a court. Should the resident wish to pursue a claim relating to the impact on her health, she has the option to seek legal advice.
The Ombudsman has, however, taken into account any general distress and inconvenience that the landlord’s service delivery may have caused. The Ombudsman has also considered whether the landlord’s approach should have considered the resident’s reported vulnerabilities.

Policies and procedures

The landlord operates an emergency decant policy. The policy notes that it may use a hotel for emergency decants. It will also offer a daily amount towards food expenses. The landlord’s separate non-emergency decant policy notes that where a decant extends over 10 working days, it will seek to relocate the resident to a more suitable void property on a temporary basis. The policy notes that the resident is still responsible for rent on their original property during the period of the decant.
The landlord operates a responsive repairs policy. The policy defines an emergency repair as one where there is an immediate danger to a person’s safety. Emergency repairs should be addressed within 24 hours. Non-emergency repairs (‘routine repairs’) should be addressed within 20 working days of a report.
The landlord operates a two stage complaints procedure. It will provide a stage one response within 10 working days of a complaint and a stage two response within 20 working days of an escalation request.

Account information

The landlord has acknowledged that as part of the mutual exchange procedure, the resident should have been provided with the necessary information in order to pay rent, including a rent card. It should also have uploaded the resident’s details on its systems to allow her to access its online services and lodge and monitor repairs.
It is not disputed that the landlord initially failed to either provide the resident with relevant rent information or upload her details on its system. In its formal response, the landlord appropriately apologised for the delay and advised that it had corrected her details on the system on 24 October 2022; however, on 10 November 2022, the resident had raised concerns that she was not able to use the system to monitor repairs. This was a missed opportunity for it to check her accounts were working and offer any assistance.
Similarly, the resident sent multiple emails in late 2022 regarding her rent card. On several occasions in October 2022, the landlord assured the resident that it was obtaining the necessary information for her but then failed to follow this up. This led the resident to have to expend time and trouble chasing the issue. The resident was caused further distress when she received an arrears letter in December 2022, despite her seeking to pay her rent on multiple occasions.
In its formal responses, the landlord advised that it would have been possible for the resident to have paid her rent without a rent card. It would have been helpful, however, had it given her assistance with the different methods at the time she raised her concerns, which it did not do.
In its formal responses, the landlord appropriately acknowledged it had failed to provide the rent information and apologised. It also recognised the distress and inconvenience this had caused and offered £150 at stage one for the delays to the rent information. It also apologised for the delays in uploading her information to the system. At stage two, it increased its offer for the rent information delays to £250 and also offered £100 for the delays to uploading her information onto its system. It further acknowledged its communication had been poor, for which it apologised.
In the Ombudsman’s opinion, while these delays and poor communication would have caused the resident distress, the landlord appropriately acknowledged these failings and apologised. Its total offer of compensation of £350 for these issues was proportionate to the distress and inconvenience caused and was in line with this service’s remedies guidance, which recommends compensation from £100 where a failure has adversely affected a resident but there has been no permanent impact. A finding of reasonable redress has, therefore, been made for this element of the complaint.

Asbestos

The resident moved into the property through a mutual exchange. As such, there was no voids period during which the landlord would be expected to investigate the property for any repair issues. This service has not been presented with any evidence to suggest the landlord should reasonably have been aware of asbestos in the property at the time the resident moved in.
Upon being made aware of a repair issue, the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to take action in line with its policy and within a reasonable timeframe, which would depend on the circumstances. It should also take into account any vulnerabilities of the resident. In this case, the resident reported a number of repair issues when she moved into the property. While the landlord advised it had raised works, the resident had to chase these up on a number of occasions before she got a response. The landlord’s communication throughout the complaint is commented on further below.
Given that she did not receive a timely response, the resident expended time and trouble arranging her own inspection of the property, which raised concerns about asbestos. Upon receiving reports of possible asbestos from the resident, the landlord appropriately asked if the resident had a report. Given that there was no expert report to determine that there was an immediate risk, it was reasonable for the landlord to approach the issue as a non-emergency repair.
The resident first reported the possible asbestos on 10 November 2022. The landlord subsequently arranged for an inspection from an external specialist for 14 November 2022. This was well within the timeframes of its policy and was an appropriate timeframe given the resident’s vulnerabilities, although the Ombudsman notes it took several requests for assistance from the resident before this action was confirmed. The landlord advised that its contractor would attend before 6:00pm; however, the resident reported that they did not attend until 8:00pm, at which point she was unavailable. This meant the inspection had to be rebooked, and while it was rebooked reasonably quickly, this failure to meet promised timeframes caused the resident distress and inconvenience.
Once the initial inspection took place, the contractor confirmed that the exposed areas had been painted over, and so it was reasonable for the landlord to wait for its full report. While this took 12 days to be provided, this was beyond the landlord’s control. The report noted that the asbestos present amounted to a “medium” risk. It recommended that action be taken to remove it but did not recommend an emergency response. It was therefore reasonable that the landlord arranged for further inspections 11 days later.
The landlord’s further inspection determined that the property failed an air safety test. While this would have been extremely distressing for the resident, there is no evidence to suggest that the landlord should have been aware of this risk sooner, and the landlord had followed its policy up until this point (aside from poor communication with the resident). Upon discovering that the property had failed the air test, the landlord appropriately decanted the resident into a hotel on the same day. It also provided her with relevant information about her expenses and offered to pay for a taxi for her. This was appropriate and timely action, in line with its emergency decant policy.
During her time in the decant hotel, the resident has advised that she had to move to multiple rooms due to the availability in the hotel. When arranging a decant property, the priority is arranging somewhere safe on an urgent basis. This may mean that the need for subsequent relocation is beyond the landlord’s control, as the requirement for the decant property may extend longer than its availability once the extent of the works is understood. However, in this case, the resident has advised that some movement was due to the landlord delaying in arranging an extension. The Ombudsman has seen evidence that on multiple occasions, the resident made a number of requests for updates about an extension, only for the landlord to confirm the extension on the day. This would have been very distressing for the resident, during what was already a distressing time.
The landlord later chose to move the resident into a more suitable serviced apartment, which was reasonable given that it would take a number of months to resolve the issues with the resident’s property. However, further inconvenience was caused as the serviced apartment required a deep clean, which delayed the resident moving in. Additionally, while the landlord appropriately committed to covering the resident’s expenses, it often took multiple requests from the resident before payments were received, which caused the resident considerable distress.
The landlord appropriately arranged for the necessary repair works, which were completed in the timeframes it had advised. Given that the resident was reluctant to return to the property, the landlord also used the opportunity to identify all other repair issues in the property and take action, which it did within a reasonable timeframe. This was an appropriate step to ensure that if the resident did return to the property, she would hopefully not face any further immediate issues.
From as early as December 2022, the resident expressed concerns about returning to the property once the works were completed. The landlord operates a management transfer policy in which it can offer a direct let where there are “exceptional” circumstances, or the safety of a resident is at risk. Outside of the management transfer process, a resident looking to move would have to register and be awarded a priority banding to bid on properties. Given that the property, once the asbestos had been removed, would be safe to return to, the landlord went beyond its responsibility to offer a management move to the resident in this case. Given that the resident was pregnant and had suffered considerable distress and inconvenience, this was an appropriate use of the landlord’s discretion. The landlord also appropriately measured the resident’s expectations about how long it may take to find an appropriate property.
The landlord offered an initial property, which the resident inspected. This property was undergoing void works at the time of her visit. The resident raised concerns that the landlord shouldn’t have invited her to view the property while works were ongoing, as she considered this unsafe. An assessment of whether any health and safety rules have been breached is beyond the scope of this investigation and the resident has the option to seek further legal advice if she remains concerned about this issue.
The landlord had made it clear it would only offer one property as part of this process. The Ombudsman understands that this is common practice in the industry for management moves. Nevertheless, given the resident’s distress at the property undergoing works, the landlord appropriately used its discretion to make a further offer.
The Ombudsman also notes that the landlord was proactive in discussing the list of the resident’s items that had been disposed of and arranging for these to be replaced or reimbursed. As with her expenses payments, the resident had to chase the landlord for payment on a number of occasions. Nevertheless, the Ombudsman notes that it is common practice to go through insurers to recuperate these costs, which can be a protracted and frustrating process. It was appropriate, therefore, that the landlord used its discretion to pay these directly.
In its formal responses, the landlord acknowledged that its communication had been poor throughout the period of the complaint. It also acknowledged this had caused the resident distress and inconvenience. It appropriately apologised. Its initial offer of compensation for this element of the complaint was for £500, which was not proportionate to the impact caused to the resident. However, it appropriately revised this offer at stage two given that there had been further impact caused to the resident. Its offer at stage two for this element of the complaint was only increased by £250, which again, was not proportionate to the impact caused to the resident.
Given the resident’s dissatisfaction with its offer, the landlord took the opportunity to review its offer prior to the intervention of this service. It specifically noted the inconvenience caused by the temporary accommodation and that its overall handling of the case had been poor. It increased the total compensation for this element of the complaint and the resultant distress and inconvenience to £2,350, in addition to the compensation offered to cover the resident’s expenses and damaged possessions.
In this case, it is not disputed that the landlord’s communication was poor throughout the period of the complaint. It was often the case that the resident had to request updates multiple times before she received a response. While the landlord acknowledged this in each of its formal responses (and several informal responses as well) and promised to learn from its mistakes, this poor communication continued. It also delayed in providing some of the payments for the resident’s expenses, which contributed to her distress and inconvenience.
However, there have also been mitigating actions from the landlord. It initially appropriately followed its emergency decant procedure and moved the resident without delay. It also arranged for the necessary repair works and additional repair works within a reasonable time period. It additionally chose to cover all of the resident’s losses itself without the need for the insurance process, which avoided further inconvenience. It also used its discretion appropriately to offer two management move direct lets.
This service’s remedies guidance notes that compensation between £600-£1,000 should be offered in instances where there has been a significant impact caused to a resident. In this case, the overall poor communication and the handling of the decant both caused the resident a significant impact. However, given the mitigating steps taken by the landlord, it has taken reasonable steps to put things right, its offer of compensation was proportionate to the impact caused and was in line with this service’s guidance. A finding of reasonable redress has, therefore, been made for this element of the complaint.

Complaints handling

As noted above, the landlord’s complaints policy requires that it provide a stage one response within 10 working days of a complaint. Following the resident’s initial complaint on 8 December 2022, the landlord appropriately acknowledged the complaint and advised that it would provide its response within 10 working days. However, it did not provide its stage one response until 13 January 2023. This was 23 working days after the complaint. The Ombudsman understands that sometimes a complaint investigation can take longer; however, in such circumstances, the landlord should advise the resident of a delay prior to it becoming overdue. The landlord did not do this in this case, despite the resident chasing updates on its formal response.
Similarly, the landlord’s policy states a stage two response should be provided within 20 working days of an escalation. Given the resident’s ongoing dissatisfaction, the landlord escalated the complaint on 10 February 2023 and raised her expectations that a response would be provided by 1 March 2023. However, the stage two response was not provided until 21 April 2023. This was 49 working days after the escalation. Once again, the landlord did not keep the resident updated about a delay to its response despite her chasing updates.
These delays would have been frustrating for the resident, and the repeat at stage two shows that the landlord did not learn from its mistakes at stage one. The landlord did, however, acknowledge in both responses that its responses had been unreasonably delayed. It also offered £250 at stage one and a further £250 at stage two for these delays. It also noted it would use this case as an example for further training. The Ombudsman’s complaint handling principles are to put things right and to learn from outcomes. In this case, the landlord’s offer of compensation was proportional to the impact of the delay of these responses, and it demonstrated that it was seeking to learn from its mistakes going forward. In the circumstances, the landlord’s offer of compensation amounted to reasonable redress for this element of the complaint.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Scheme, and in the Ombudsman’s opinion, there was reasonable redress offered by the landlord for its service failure in respect of the complaints regarding its:
1. response to the resident’s reports about issues with her rent/online account details;
2. response to the resident’s reports about asbestos;
3. complaints handling.

Recommendations

The landlord is to:
1. reiterate its offer of £500 for the delay to its formal responses, if this is yet to have been accepted;
2. reiterate its offer of £350 for its delays in providing relevant rent information and uploading the resident’s details to its system, if this is yet to have been accepted;
3. reiterate its offer of £2,350 for its poor handling of the asbestos repairs and decant, if this is yet to have been accepted.