Notting Hill Genesis (NHG) (202215894)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202215894

Notting Hill Genesis (NHG)

22 March 2024

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration,’ for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice, or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman, and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

The complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s handling of a decant.
2. The front basement stairs had not been cleaned of rubbish, leaves, and debris.
3. The landlord declining to clear the back garden of weeds.
4. The landlord’s handling of reports of debris falling of the scaffolding at the property.
The Ombudsman has decided to investigate the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident holds a secure tenancy with the landlord since 1994. The resident occupies the property with his spouse and adult son. The property is a 2-bedroom basement and ground floor flat with a private garden. The landlord is a housing association.
On 12 July 2021, the resident’s property was one of 40 properties managed by the landlord affected by flooding due to heavy rainfall. The landlord provided the resident and his family with hotel accommodation for 6 months while the property was dried out and repaired.
When the resident returned home, he complained about several matters relating to the landlord’s handling of the decant, and its handling of other tenancy matters. These were;
1. The disruption of moving hotel five times.
2. The landlord’s handling of his request for a serviced apartment.
3. The landlord’s handling of reimbursement of taxi fares.
4. The landlord’s decision not to put household furniture into storage.
5. A gas leak due to contractor damaging pipework.
6. It did not provide a gas safety certificate after works were carried out.
7. It did not padlock the bedroom door during the works as agreed.
8. It did not carry out a lock change to the property after the works were completed as was agreed.
9. The fridge freezer was unplugged by contractors resulting in spoiled food.
10. A sofa had been damaged by paint.
11. The landlord’s handling of unpacking boxes when the family returned home.
12. The patio was covered in green algae from flood water.
13. The situation caused mental and physical stress to his son and aggravated his spouse’s knee injury.

Other tenancy matters

The front basement stairs were not cleaned of leaves, rubbish, and debris.
The landlord declined to weed the rear garden.
Debris fell off a scaffold and was left on the patio during cyclical decorations.
Rising damp in property.

The landlord considered the matters under a single complaint. At stage 1 of its complaint process it offered £342 in compensation, £100 for taxi fares and £242 for food shopping. The resident was dissatisfied with this and requested a review of the compensation. As a result of the compensation review the landlord increased its compensation offer to £1410. The resident remained dissatisfied with this offer and escalated the complaint. At stage 2, the landlord increased its compensation offer to £1710. The resident remained dissatisfied and escalated the complaint to this service. To resolve the issues the resident considers the compensation for the matters should be increased.

Scope of Investigation

In respect of complaint point ‘m,’ ‘The situation caused mental and physical stress to his son and aggravated his spouse’s knee injury.’ The resident has informed the landlord and this Service that an injury to his spouse’s knee was made worse and his son’s mental health deteriorated as a result of the landlord’s handling of the matters. This Service cannot determine causation or liability regarding the impact of the issues on the family’s health and wellbeing. This Service is not able to draw any conclusions on whether the physical or mental health of the household members has been affected by the landlord’s handling of the issues. Therefore, this Service is unable to include this matter in its investigation.
In respect of complaint point ‘q,’ ‘rising damp in property,’ The resident complained of rising damp in the property. The resident has confirmed to this Service this part of his complaint remains in progress with the landlord and has not exhausted the landlord’s internal complaint procedure. Therefore, this service is unable to include this matter in this investigation.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the decant.

The disruption of moving hotel 5 times

The landlord’s decant policy defines an emergency decant as ‘a move required following an emergency such as flood or fire.’
The policy also states, ‘In an emergency situation we may require a tenant to move to alternative accommodation’ and in emergency circumstances the landlord will contact its emergency alternative accommodation provider (ICAB).
In his stage 1 complaint the resident complained he had to change hotels 5 times during the 6 months he was decanted.
The evidence shows the landlord referred the family to its emergency accommodation provider. This was in line with its emergency response policy and procedure. The landlord’s accommodation provider placed the family in a local hotel for the first 6 nights. After this, the family were placed at local hotels for periods ranging from 4 – 6 weeks. The family spent a total of 6 months in hotel accommodation. The landlord informed them it would reimburse reasonable taxi fares when the family needed to travel to a new hotel. This was appropriate in the circumstances.
In its stage 1 response, it explained that wherever possible it attempted to rebook the same hotels to avoid disruption to families. It further explained it was not always possible to rebook the same hotel due to the hotel’s lack of availability due to pre-existing bookings. At the beginning of the issue, the landlord provided the resident with a ‘Flood support and FAQ’s’ document. This explained its position that due to the large number of families affected, contractor availability and management of asbestos in the properties that needed repair, it was likely that residents would spend extended periods in hotel accommodation. The Ombudsman finds the landlord communicated appropriately about the situation and the constraints from an early stage. While it did not identify any service failure on its part, it apologised for the disruption caused and said it would reimburse £100 in taxi fares for travel in between hotels. On receiving the landlord’s stage 1 response the resident spoke with the landlord. As a result of the discussion, the landlord agreed to review the compensation it offered at stage 1. As a result of its compensation review, it increased its offer to £250. The resident remained dissatisfied with this and escalated the complaint to stage 2. At stage 2, the landlord confirmed its position that there had been no service failure on its part and acknowledged the situation had been disruptive and distressing to the family. It increased its compensation offer to £400.
The Ombudsman finds the landlord communicated the availability and timescale issues with the resident from an early stage through informal and formal communications and updates it issued weekly. It agreed practical support in taxi fares for travel to new hotel locations. While it was not obligated to offer compensation, the landlord made an offer of £400 in recognition of the disruption. This was fair and reasonable in the circumstances.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a serviced apartment.

The resident complained the landlord had not offered him a serviced apartment at the 12-week stage of the decant. The landlord overlooked this complaint area in its stage 1 response. This was frustrating for the resident, and he cited this as a reason for escalating the complaint to stage 2. (The landlord’s complaint handling has been investigated later in this report).
The Ombudsman has assessed the landlord’s emergency decant policy and procedure and its ‘Flood support FAQ’s’ document provided to the resident, and finds the landlord was not required to offer a serviced apartment at the 12-week stage. The records show that in September 2021, the resident asked the landlord to provide a serviced apartment on the grounds of his spouse’s knee injury (caused by a slip on flood water) and adult son’s health condition. The landlord asked its accommodation provider to investigate the options for the family. It also requested the hotel provide the family a room with level access accommodation. These were appropriate steps to take. The hotel informed the landlord it was not able to provide a family room with an accessible bathroom, but it could organise a single accessible room for the resident’s spouse, with the resident and his son remaining in the current room. The landlord’s records indicate the family did not wish to pursue this option.
The landlord informed the resident it would get back to him when it had a potential solution, but no evidence has been provided that it did this. The Ombudsman finds that while the landlord made appropriate efforts to accommodate the residents request, it did not get back to the resident as it said it would. This was not good customer service and did not reassure the resident that his request for a serviced apartment was being kept under active consideration.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response did not outline the efforts it had made in September 2021, but stated that it had prioritised residents who had significant physical health conditions and/or were receiving a care package that could not be delivered in a hotel. While this was appropriate in the circumstances it failed to acknowledge that it had not kept him updated him on his request.
The Ombudsman finds the landlord was not obligated to offer a serviced apartment but made efforts to accommodate the residents request, but also finds the landlord did not appropriately communicate or inform the resident about the outcome of the request. This was a failing and caused frustration and annoyance to the resident. The Ombudsman makes an order for £50 compensation below.

The landlord’s handling of reimbursement of taxi fares

In his stage 1 complaint the resident complained he had not been reimbursed taxi fares as agreed in advance (these taxi fares are separate to taxi fares agreed for travel to new hotel locations). In this case the resident had to return to the property at intervals to feed the family cats.
The landlord’s decant policy states ‘Where we require a tenant to be moved temporarily or in an emergency we will, generally, pay all reasonable expenses agreed in advance.’
In its stage 1 response the landlord acknowledged its ‘flood team’ had informed him in July 2021, it would reimburse taxi fares. However, in the next sentence it declined to refund taxi fares. The landlord’s disorganised approach would have been confusing for the resident. The resident remained dissatisfied and escalated the complaint to stage 2.
At stage 2, the landlord said it had investigated further and confirmed it should have reimbursed the taxi fares of £418. While it was appropriate for the landlord to reimburse the taxi fares, the Ombudsman’s view is that the resident should not have had to complain to be reimbursed.

The landlord’s decision not to put household furniture into storage.

The landlord’s emergency decant policy and its ordinary decant policy do not set out its approach to storing belongings when a resident is decanted. The landlord’s Flood Support FAQ’s document stated it would either secure furniture and belongings in rooms of the property or help place them in storage.
The resident complained the landlord refused to put his household furniture in storage. In its stage 1 complaint response the landlord stated it had not placed furniture in storage because storage companies had no capacity. This was heavy handed and failed to explain that in line with its FAQ’s document, it had the option of storing furniture in a locked room.
The resident was dissatisfied and escalated this part of the complaint. In its stage 2 response the landlord apologised for the inaccurate information it had provided at stage 1 and explained it was a business wide decision to store furniture in upper rooms that were not affected by flood water. While this was a sensible approach to take, the landlord did not communicate this effectively at the time, or in its stage 1 complaints response.
The landlord’s poor communication on the issue caused annoyance and frustration to the resident. The Ombudsman finds that while there was no maladministration in the landlord’s decision not to place the resident’s furniture into storage, there were failings in its communication about its reasons for not doing so.
The landlord offered an apology for its lack of communication and incorrect explanation given at stage 1. The Ombudsman considers a financial remedy would have been more appropriate in the circumstances and makes an order for £50 compensation below.
A gas leak due to the contractor damaging pipework.
On 13 December 2021, in preparation for the resident to return home, the landlord carried out a gas safety check at the property. The safety check identified a gas leak at the property. The landlord investigated and found a gas pipe had inadvertently been pierced during the refurbishment. The issue delayed the residents return home by 3 weeks. This caused disappointment, distress, and inconvenience to the resident. In its stage 1 response the landlord apologised for the issue but did not acknowledge the impact of the 3-week delay in returning home. This was unfair and unreasonable because the landlord was aware the resident had not been able to return home as planned.
On receiving the landlord’s stage 1 response the resident spoke with the landlord. The landlord agreed to review the compensation it had offered. As a result of its compensation review, it offered £250. The resident remained dissatisfied with the compensation offered and escalated the complaint. At stage 2, the landlord apologised for the issue and re-offered £250 in compensation. It also covered the resident’s expenses during the additional time spent in the hotel. The landlord’s compensation guide states it will pay up to £250 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.
This amount was in line with its compensation policy where there is service failure with a high impact. The landlord’s handling of this aspect of the complaint was reasonable and proportionate.

The landlord failed to provide the resident with a gas safety certificate.

The Gas Safety (Installation and Use) Regulations 1998 (as amended) require a landlord to issue a copy of the gas safety certificate within 28 days of the check being completed. The landlord’s Gas Safety policy states it will issue a copy of the Landlords Gas Safety Record (LGSR) within 28 days of the check. In this case, the resident complained that after repairs to the gas pipework in December 2021 it failed to provide the LGSR and did not respond to his request in January 2022 to provide it.
The landlord overlooked this complaint area in its stage 1 response. This was unreasonable and undermined the resident’s confidence in the complaint investigation. The landlord’s internal records show it emailed the LGSR to the resident on 6 July 2022. This was 8 months after the certificate had been produced and 7 months after the resident requested it. This was unfair and unreasonable.
In its stage 2 complaint response dated 5 September 2022, it apologised but failed to provide any reason for its delay in providing the LGSR. The Ombudsman’s view is that given the gas leak in December 2021, it was important for the landlord to recognise the residents need for formal confirmation the gas installation was safe to use, and act quickly to put things right, however, it did not do this. The Ombudsman is concerned the matter was overlooked at stage 1 of the complaints process and is also concerned the landlord has not provided any evidence that it carried out an internal investigation into the matter. In the circumstances it would be appropriate for the landlord to carry out an investigation.
The Ombudsman finds that by not providing the LGSR and failing to respond to the resident’s request for several months, the landlord did not comply with paragraph 36, regulation 6(a) of Gas Safety Regulations 1998. This was unreasonable, caused upset, distress, and inconvenience to the resident. The Ombudsman finds there was maladministration. In the circumstances the apology offered at stage 2 does not go far enough to put things right. The Ombudsman has made an order for £250 compensation.

The landlord did not padlock the bedroom door during the works as agreed.

When it moved the resident’s furniture into upstairs rooms, the landlord informed the resident it would install a padlock to the room as a security measure. The landlord did not do this, and the resident complained. It is not clear if the resident brought this matter to the landlord’s attention during the period of the decant, so it could take steps to put things right. In its stage 1 response it apologised that it has not provided the lock but provided no explanation for the service failure. The resident remained dissatisfied and escalated the complaint. At stage 2, the landlord apologised again and acknowledged there had been service failure on its part. It offered £50 in compensation.
The Ombudsman finds the landlord failed to provide the service it said it would. It also should have identified the matter itself as part of its oversight and management of the refurbishment of the resident’s property. The Ombudsman takes into account the resident has not described any detriment caused by the issue. The landlord’s compensation offer and handling of this aspect of the complaint was reasonable and proportionate.

The landlord did not carry out a lock change to the property after the works were completed as was agreed.

Following the resident’s return to the property in January 2022, the records show the resident had concerns about security of the property given the number of contractors and individuals accessing the property during the decant period. In January 2022, the landlord informed the resident that it would change the locks as a security measure. This was appropriate in the circumstances.
In his complaint dated April 2022, the resident complained about the landlord’s delay. In its stage 1 response dated 28 April 2022, it said it would arrange the lock change. The lock change was carried out 9 weeks later on 22 June 2022. This was 6 months after it said it would. In its stage 2 complaint response, it acknowledged the 6-month delay and apologised. It offered £50 compensation.
The landlord’s compensation policy states it will consider a compensation amount of up to £50 where service standards have not been met, the issue has taken slightly longer than expected to resolve and where there is low impact. It also states it will consider a compensation payment up to £125 where the service provided has markedly failed to meet service standards, has caused inconvenience and distress and where there was medium impact.
The Ombudsman considers a payment under the medium impact bracket would have been more appropriate. This is because the length of time the landlord took to resolve the issue was unfair and unreasonable. The Ombudsman finds the resident and his family did not feel secure in their home during the 6 months the landlord delayed in changing the locks. This caused worry, inconvenience, and distress to the resident.
The Ombudsman finds that while the landlord did acknowledge its failings and offer £50 in compensation, this did not go far enough and makes an order for an additional payment of £75 in compensation.

The fridge freezer was unplugged by contractors resulting in spoiled food.

The contractor carrying out works at the property mistakenly unplugged the resident’s fridge freezer resulting in spoiled food. In his stage 1 complaint the resident complained that he had not been reimbursed for this. In its stage 1 response the landlord apologised and offered to reimburse £242 to the resident based on the receipts provided. This was fair and appears to have resolved the matter for the resident. Additionally, this complaint point was not mentioned in the resident’s stage 2 escalation request, so the landlord need not have escalated this complaint point to stage 2. However, it decided to consider the matter again at stage 2.
At stage 2, the landlord apologised again and confirmed its offer of £242. The landlord’s handling of this aspect of the complaint was reasonable and proportionate.

A sofa had been damaged by paint.

The resident complained a sofa was spattered with paint during the redecoration of the property. At stage 1, the landlord apologised and said it had cleaned the sofa. This response did not properly address the complaint point and left the issue unresolved for the resident. The Ombudsman expects that when a resident complains that personal belongings have been damaged , it will investigate and either uphold or not uphold the complaint. On receiving the landlord’s stage 1 response the resident spoke with the landlord. As a result of the discussion, the landlord agreed to review its position. As a result of its review, it offered £250.
The resident remained dissatisfied and escalated the complaint to stage 2. The landlord visited the resident at home to discuss the issue. This was a good approach and demonstrated customer focus. As a result of the landlord’s visit, it organised a professional clean of the sofa. The resident remained unhappy with the condition of the sofa after the professional clean and escalated the complaint.
In its stage 2 response, the landlord apologised and acknowledged its contractors had not taken appropriate steps to protect the sofa during the works. It reoffered £250 in recognition of this. Additionally, the landlord successfully applied to the landlord’s hardship fund to purchase a new sofa for the resident.
The Ombudsman finds the compensation offered was in line with its compensation policy, and the purchase of a new sofa through the landlord’s hardship fund was fair and reasonable. The landlord’s handling of this aspect of the complaint was reasonable and proportionate.

The landlord did not provide assistance with unpacking boxes when the family returned home.

The resident complained when he returned home the landlord declined to assist with unpacking boxes of his belongings. In its stage 1 response the landlord did not uphold this part of the complaint. It stated it had provided workers to assist with unpacking, moving, and putting together furniture. It stated that boxes containing personal items and ornaments were the tenant’s responsibility to unpack. The resident remained dissatisfied with this and escalated the complaint. In its stage 2 response, the landlord apologised it had not communicated effectively with him about his responsibility to unpack smaller items.
The Ombudsman find the landlord did not effectively manage the resident’s expectations leading to disappointment. The Ombudsman takes into account the resident did not report any detriment had been caused to him by the issue and therefore considers the landlord’s handling of this aspect of the complaint was reasonable and proportionate.

The patio in rear garden was covered in green algae from flood water.

The resident complained that because of floodwater the patio in the rear garden was covered in green algae and had yet to be cleaned. In its stage 1 response dated 28 April 2022, the landlord apologised this had not been completed and stated it would organise for this to be done. The records provided show the patio was jet washed 6 weeks later on 6 June 2022. This was 6 months after the resident returned home.
The resident remained dissatisfied and escalated the matter to stage 2. In its stage 2 response the landlord stated it understood the matter had been resolved by the jet wash clean. It did not acknowledge its delay in carrying out the clean and did not acknowledge the resident should not have had to complain to get the work completed. The Ombudsman takes into account the resident did not report any detriment had been caused to him by the delay. The Ombudsman finds there was a failing in the length of time the landlord took to clean the patio and makes an order for £50 compensation below.

Summary

The Ombudsman acknowledges the landlord faced a sudden event which it was not able to plan for and that left the resident’s property uninhabitable. The Ombudsman finds that the landlord complied with its emergency decant policy and procedure in that it organised accommodation, subsistence payments and communicated with the resident through its weekly flood updates. The landlord’s wider communications acknowledged the emotional upset and distress caused to the resident, and the Ombudsman is pleased to note the landlord’s weekly updates contained contact details for staff members, local support agencies and other information the resident may have found useful. However, the Ombudsman also finds the landlord did not always communicate effectively with the resident on a personal level about its reasons for doing, or not doing things. An example of this is, while there was no fault in its decision not to put the resident’s furniture into storage, it failed to communicate effectively with him about its reasons. Additionally, the administrative side of things did not always go well and caused unreasonable delays in its actions that were important to the resident, such as providing the gas safety certificate, changing the locks on the property, and reimbursing taxi fares. This led to the resident not receiving the level of service, or payments he was told he would. He then had to complain to get matters put right. Looking at everything together, the Ombudsman finds there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the decant.

The front basement stairs had not been cleaned of rubbish, leaves, and debris.

The resident complained the front basement stairs had not been cleaned for a number of months. He had reported this twice to the landlord, but it took no action. He informed it he had paid for communal external cleaning through a service charge. In its stage 1 response the landlord apologised the cleaning had not taken place and organised for the area to be cleaned.
The landlord’s complaint response did not address the matter of the resident being charged for a service he had not received and did not explain why it had not responded to his earlier report about it. This was unfair and unreasonable. The resident escalated his complaint, but the landlord did not respond to this complaint area at stage 2. The records show the communal cleaning was carried out on 11 April 2022.
The Ombudsman finds that between January 2022 and April 2022, the landlord did not provide the cleaning service it was obligated to provide under the service charge schedule. The Ombudsman finds there was service failure.
The landlord’s compensation procedure states it will consider a compensation payment up to £125 where it has markedly failed to meet service standards, has caused inconvenience and distress and where there was medium impact.
The Ombudsman considers a compensation amount of £100 would be appropriate in the circumstances.

The landlord declining to clear the back garden of weeds.

The resident complained the back garden had become overgrown with weeds. In its stage 1 response the landlord stated that in line with the tenancy agreement, the garden was the resident’s responsibility to maintain. The Ombudsman finds this was a reasonable in the circumstances. The resident was dissatisfied and escalated the complaint to stage 2. As part of its stage 2 investigation, the landlord visited the resident at home. The resident explained the scaffolding in place for cyclical decorations prevented him from gardening. The landlord investigated if the resident was restricted in accessing the garden. This was appropriate. The landlord concluded that access was not restricted, and it was therefore not its responsibility to weed the garden. It upheld its stage 1 response and signposted the resident to its tenancy support team who would assist with a referral to local agencies that might be able to assist with weeding the garden.
The Ombudsman has considered the tenancy obligations and considered photographic evidence of the area and finds the landlord’s handling of this aspect of the complaint was reasonable and proportionate.

The landlord’s handling of reports of debris falling of the scaffolding at the property.

The resident complained that debris caused by cyclical decorations fell from the scaffolding narrowly missing his spouse’s head. He also complained the debris was not cleared up by the contractors despite reporting it twice. The records indicate the contractor was not present when the debris fell into the garden. In its stage 1 response the landlord said it was ‘glad no-one had been hurt’ and apologised. It organised for the debris to be cleaned away. It said it had ‘alerted the contractors to maintain safety.’ This response did not acknowledge the residents time and trouble in reporting the matter on 2 occasions before the landlord took any action. In its stage 2 response it restated its apology for the inconvenience and distress caused but did not offer any compensation. This was unfair and unreasonable.
The Ombudsman’s view is the contractor has a duty to act with care when working in a resident’s home or garden and be alive to any health and safety issues in the work area. This includes clearing away any debris from the scaffold or the ground below. The landlord’s contractor did not do this. The resident reported the debris twice before the landlord took any action. This caused annoyance and inconvenience. The Ombudsman finds there was service failure when debris fell of a scaffold was left on the patio. The Ombudsman finds that the apology offered by the landlord at stage 1 and 2 did not go far enough in recognising the impact on the resident. The Ombudsman makes an order for £125 compensation below.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The landlord has a 2 stage complaints process. It states it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.
The landlord received the resident’s complaint on 7 April 2022. This means the landlord should have provided its stage 1 response by no later than 22 April 2022. The landlord provided its response on 28 April. This was 7 days past the due date. While a single occasion of 7 days late is not significant enough to cause detriment to the resident, the landlord did not apologise for its late response or provide any explanation. This was discourteous to the resident.
After the landlord issued its stage 1 response the resident contacted it to inform it that was unhappy with the compensation offered. The landlord agreed to review the compensation offered. The Ombudsman has not identified this step in the landlord’s complaints procedure but considers the landlord demonstrated customer focus and flexibility in its approach. While in this case it did not prevent an escalation to stage 2, the landlord correctly identified an opportunity to resolve the matter for the resident.
On 27 June 2022, the resident escalated the complaint to stage 2. This means the landlord should have provided its response by no later than 22 July 2022. It provided its stage 2 response on 5 September 2022. This was 6 weeks past the due date. No evidence has been provided that this timescale was agreed with the resident or that it provided any updates to the resident during the time of the delay. This was unreasonable. The landlord’s complaint response times were not in line with its policy or procedure or the Complaint handling Code, (the Code). The landlord offered £50 in compensation for the delay. The Ombudsman’s view is that this does not go far enough in recognising the extent of the delay.
The resident’s initial complaint contained 15 complaint points. The landlord failed to identify 9 of these. The Ombudsman finds the landlord did not give due care and attention to the resident’s complaint letter. The Code states ‘Landlord’s must address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions, referencing the relevant policy, law, and good practice….’ The landlord failed to do this which resulted in an inadequate stage 1 response, and meant the resident had to escalate several parts of his complaint to stage 2. This undermined the resident’s confidence in the landlord’s complaint investigation. The situation suggests a lack of oversight of the stage 1 response.
For the complaints process to be effective the landlord must offer an appropriate remedy that reflects the extent of any service failures. The Ombudsman finds at times the landlord offered an apology where a financial remedy would have been more appropriate. Examples of this are the matter of the LGSR, the lack of external front cleaning, and the debris left on the patio. On other occasions, the financial remedy offered did not go far enough. An example of this is the delay in carrying out a lock change to the property and its complaint handling.
Looking at everything together:
1. The failure to identify complaint areas leading to an inadequate stage 1 complaint response.
2. The stage 2 response time.
The Ombudsman finds there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling which caused frustration, inconvenience, and distress. Having regard to the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance where maladministration exists, an order is made for additional compensation in the amount of £150.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of:
1. The landlords handling of the decant.
2. The landlord’s complaint handling.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in respect of:
1. The front basement stairs had not been cleaned of leaves, rubbish, and debris.
2. The landlord’s handling of reports of debris falling of scaffolding at the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration in respect of the landlord declining to weed the garden.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must:
1. Apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident £2,560 in compensation. (This includes the £1,710 it offered at Stage 2 if this has not already been paid), comprising:
  1. £50 for the landlord’s communication failure in respect of its handling of the resident’s request for a serviced apartment.
  2. £50 for its communication failure in respect of its decision not to place the household furniture into storage.
  3. £75 for delays in its handling of the lock change to the property.
  4. £50 for its delay in cleaning the algae on the patio.
  5. £125 for the debris left on the patio by the contractors.
  6. £100 for failure to provide the cleaning service of the basement front stairs.
  7. £250 compensation for failing to provide a gas safety certificate to the resident.
  8. £150 for the failings in its complaint handling.
The landlord should carry out an investigation into why it did not provide the LGSR to the resident for 7 months. It should check that other residents have not been affected by the same issue. The investigation and outcome should be shared with this service.
Provide this service with evidence it has complied with the above orders.

Recommendation

The landlord may wish to consider carrying out a ‘settling in visit’ when residents return home after an extended period away from the home because of an extended decant/ refurbishment. This might provide an opportunity for issues to be identified and resolved at an earlier stage.