Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

Notting Hill Genesis (NHG) (202305308)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202305308

Notting Hill Genesis (NHG)

28 May 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a transfer and change in allocation banding.

Background

  1. The resident has been an assured shorthold tenant of the landlord for over 10 years. The property is a first floor 2-bedroom flat, described by the landlord as suitable for 3 persons. It has no outside space. At the time of raising this complaint the resident shared the property with her elder son, who was 20 and 2 younger sons, who were both below the age of 16.
  2. The resident has reported that both she and her elder son suffer from anxiety. Her elder son also suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).
  3. The landlord accepted the resident’s transfer application in 2015. She was awarded priority band C, which meant that the landlord considered the property was overcrowded. In May 2021 the landlord asked an external medical assessor to determine if the resident had a medical priority to move. The assessment found that she did not. The resident provided other evidence from professionals who supported her need to move from the property. She also complained that she considered the landlord was discriminating against her because of her race.
  4. The resident made a formal complaint to the landlord on 12 May 2023. She said that she had asked for her medical assessment form to be considered when applying for a housing transfer and understood that this had not happened. She said that instead the landlord had asked for the measurements of the property, which she felt was irrelevant. She said she felt the landlord did not take her mental health seriously and had not considered a management move or a re–banding to help her move. On 18 May 2023 the resident’s MP asked the landlord to address the resident’s concerns.
  5. The landlord responded on 23 May 2023. It said it had forwarded her medical evidence to the relevant team for her assessment in May 2021 but the outcome of that assessment was that her banding remained categorised as priority Band C. It asked the resident to provide any details or examples supporting her allegation about discrimination. The landlord says the resident did not do so. It also said it had reviewed her case and that because of the severe social hardship the resident faced, she had been awarded priority Band B.
  6. However, on 19 June 2023 the landlord called the resident to say that the banding upgrade to Band B had not been authorised. The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2. Acknowledging her escalation in July 2023, the landlord confirmed that the resident’s supporting medical information had been considered but it did not consider she should be awarded a Band A priority. (It is unclear why it considered the resident wanted a Band A priority rather than Band B, which is the banding the available records indicate the resident was seeking.)
  7. However, the landlord said that the resident should have been told at stage 1 of its complaint’s procedure that she could ask for a review of the banding decision from the landlord’s lettings panel. It offered £50 compensation to acknowledge this failure in communication.
  8. It also apologised for misinforming the resident that she had been awarded Band B priority. It offered her £25 for the inconvenience in relation to this error.
  9. The resident provided further supporting information to the landlord’s lettings panel but her application was refused and she remained at Band C priority.
  10. The outcome the resident seeks is for her banding to be changed to Band B.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has expressed concerns regarding the impact the situation has caused to her health. This Service is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing as claims of personal injury must, ultimately, be decided by courts of law who can consider medical evidence and make legally binding findings. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident.
  2. The Ombudsman also notes that the resident alleged, at stage 1 of her complaint, that the landlord discriminated against her. This Service cannot determine whether discrimination has taken place, as this is a legal term which is also better suited to a court to decide.  Further, the resident did not pursue her allegations about discrimination through the complaints process, focusing on other issues. Therefore, as that part of her initial complaint did not go through the landlord’s complaint’s process, we have not investigated that element.

On the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a transfer and change in allocation banding.

  1. The records show that the May 2021 lettings panel considered the medical evidence before it. However, it did not consider that it justified increasing the resident’s priority banding from C to B.
  2. The landlord’s allocation policy says that in order to be awarded band B priority award a resident would have to have satisfy one of a list of criteria, including:
    1. having a medical need (including mental health) which was adversely affected by their current housing,
    2. facing potential violence,
    3. being statutorily overcrowded,
    4. where 2 housing managers had agreed a resident had an urgent need to move because of severe social hardship.
  3. In May 2021 the landlord’s external medical advisors did not consider the resident had a medical need to move. The landlord acted appropriately in relying upon the opinion of its external medical advisors in reaching its decision about the resident’s banding.
  4. In June 2021 the resident provided a further letter of support from her son’s councillor. It is unclear if there was any direct response to this communication but in August 2021 the landlord assessed the property to determine if it was statutorily overcrowded and found it was not. This is evidence that it was taking steps to ascertain if the resident’s banding could be increased to Band B.
  5. Following the resident’s stage 1 complaint in May 2023, the records show the landlord attempted to check if the property might now be classed as statutorily overcrowded, given that some time had elapsed since the last assessment and the resident’s children were older. The records show that the resident did not feel she should have to provide the room measurements again. It is not clear if the landlord followed this up. We have recommended that the landlord complete a repeat assessment if it was not. It has the relevant measurements on file and should not require the resident to provide them.
  6. At the same time the landlord confirmed with the resident that her partner had had no contact since 2022 and there had been no violent incidents since 2021. The landlord acted reasonably in considering whether the resident was facing potential violence as this was relevant to the banding level.
  7. On 8 May 2023 internally a manager noted that, “The only way to get them to B is through some kind of hardship.” This indicates that the landlord was consider all avenues which may have increased the resident’s banding. On 23 May 2023 the landlord’s internal records show it asked 2 managers if 1 of them could approve the transfer application. It explained it had reviewed her application following the resident’s MP’s input and her complaint. It said the resident had said the living arrangements were having a big impact on her and her son’s mental health.
  8. One of the managers said they would grant approval “…if you have the evidence that the living situation has an impact on [the resident’s] health.” They asked if the case had been assessed by the landlord’s external assessors. It confirmed it had been assessed before but now the case was going to be resubmitted.
  9. The landlord has said that unfortunately there was then a miscommunication which led to it writing to the resident at stage 1 of its complaints process and informing her that a Band B priority had been awarded. It says that in fact this had not happened because only 1 manager had approved the banding upgrade. The transfer approval form is clear that to approve an upgrade to Band B, approval is required from 2 managers.  The landlord acted unreasonably in incorrectly informing the resident she had been awarded Band B.
  10. However, the landlord acknowledged its mistake in its stage 2 response and offered the resident £25 compensation for the inconvenience caused by the misinformation.
  11. When there are acknowledged failings by a landlord, as is the case here, the Ombudsman will consider whether any redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress (an apology and compensation), was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles; be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes. 
  12. The landlord’s compensation policy says that for those residents that have experienced distress and inconvenience following a service failure, it can make a discretionary payment of up to £250. For a low impact service failure, where service standards have not been met and compensation is more appropriate than a goodwill gesture, it says it can offer up to £50. For a service failure it considers had a medium impact, it says it can offer up to £125. This is for situations where the service has markedly failed to meet service standards and the failure caused inconvenience and distress which it describes as being “not manageable” for the resident.
  13. For the service failure in relation to providing the resident with the misinformation described above, the landlord offered the resident £25. This is an indication that it considered the service failure had a low impact. However, we consider that increasing the resident’s expectations and allowing her to think she might be able to move from a living environment she found very stressful, had a higher impact. The level of compensation offered was not proportionate to the distress and inconvenience incurred by the resident, especially given her known anxiety. Therefore, having regard to the landlord’s compensation policy and our remedies guidance, we have, given the impact of this service failure on the resident, ordered a higher payment to be made.
  14. However, the landlord acted fairly in apologising and correcting its mistake.
  15. It also offered the resident £50 for failing to communicate to the resident that she could appeal its earlier decision to the lettings panel. This was appropriate although it is not clear that the resident would have wanted to appeal a Band B award. Nonetheless, it demonstrated that where it considered it had erred, it wanted to treat the resident fairly and put things right.
  16. In any event, the resident was then given the opportunity for her application to be looked at again. Ultimately, it did not produce the outcome she hoped for.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s request for a transfer and change in allocation banding.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay the resident within 4 weeks a total of £100 in compensation. (If the landlord has already paid the £25 offered at stage 2 of its complaint’s process for the inconvenience caused by its miscommunication, that payment should be deducted from this sum.)
  2. If the landlord has not already paid the resident the further £50 offered at stage 2 of its complaints response for failing to communicate to her that she could appeal its earlier decision to the lettings panel, it is ordered to pay this sum within 4 weeks.
  3. Payments are to be made direct to the resident and not used to offset any monies that the resident may owe to the landlord. The landlord must update this Service when payment has been made and provide evidence.
  4. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord should provide training to relevant housing staff in applying its allocations policy.

Recommendation

  1. Within a month of this report, the landlord is recommended to complete a further statutory assessment of overcrowding at the property, providing a report to the resident confirming and explaining its findings.