Notting Hill Genesis (NHG) (202325995)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202325995

Notting Hill Genesis (NHG)

27 February 2025

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. Handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
2. Response to the resident’s reports of repairs.
3. Complaint handling.

Background

2. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The property is a ground floor flat. The resident’s neighbour lives in the basement flat.
3. On 15 August 2021, the resident submitted a home improvements form to the landlord requesting to change her bathroom flooring. The landlord approved the resident’s request but said she would be responsible for the maintenance of the flooring.
4. The resident later made reports of ASB, namely bad smells coming from her neighbour’s property. In response, the landlord provided the resident with diary sheets to log all incidents on 3 September 2021. The landlord confirmed that a housing officer had contacted other residents in the block to determine if her neighbour’s behaviour was impacting others. It assured the resident that it would continue to speak to the neighbour on a weekly basis.
5. However, between 20 September 2021 and 30 September 2021, the resident continued to report bad smells coming from her neighbour’s property. She said that she thought it was due to a blocked toilet or drains. The landlord checked the drains on 6 October 2021.
6. On 25 April 2022, the landlord contacted the resident. It said it had conducted a joint visit with the council’s environmental health department. It apologised that it had not informed the resident about the appointment. It confirmed that it was unable to identify any bad smells in the communal areas, but the landlord would arrange an inspection of her property.
7. The council served the resident’s neighbour with an abatement notice on 31 May 2022 regarding the smell coming from his property. The landlord and resident discussed the matter on 14 June 2022 in a meeting. During the meeting, the resident suggested repairs in her bathroom that she believed would improve the smell transference from her neighbour’s flat.
8. The resident continued to report bad smells. She also said that the neighbour was shouting and slamming his doors. The landlord took formal action against the neighbour in July 2022.
9. On 31 August 2022 the resident raised a complaint about:
   1. The length of time it took the landlord to address the ongoing ASB and failing to take her reports seriously.
   2. The lack of support provided by the landlord to the resident’s neighbour to improve his living conditions.
   3. Receiving contradictory information about whether the landlord would replace her bathroom flooring.
   4. The landlord’s failure to acknowledge the resident for months after she sent a summary of her experience with ASB.
   5. The landlord’s lack of empathy during its meeting with the resident on 14 June 2022. The resident said that she felt that the landlord dismissed her lived experiences of ASB.
   6. The poor quality of repairs in her bathroom, which had led to persistent issues with smell transference from her neighbours property.
10. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 13 September 2022. It acknowledged that it was an “extremely difficult” time for the resident, and it would continue to work with all relevant people and agencies to resolve the issues. It said that:
    1. The resident’s neighbour was vulnerable. It said that multiple agencies were involved in supporting her neighbour, which included regular meetings to discuss support. However, due to data protection, it was unable to disclose exact actions that had been taken so far.
    2. It had not received any diary sheets from the resident since it provided them. It asked that she complete them and urged her to contact the police if she felt threatened by her neighbour.
    3. It had taken impact statements from the resident’s neighbours regarding ASB, and there were no other complaints or issued raised about her neighbour.
    4. It had approved the resident’s request to install her own flooring in August 2021. However, if she had changed her mind, the landlord would arrange to repair or replace the floor.
    5. It had agreed to undertake some repairs in the bathroom and to fit sub-flooring in the hallway. It had discussed the agreed work in an online meeting between the landlord, the resident and Shelter. It was waiting for the resident to respond to its proposal.
11. The resident escalated her complaint on 10 October 2022. She said that the landlord had not addressed all her complaints. She said that the landlord had never taken an impact statement. The resident also said that while her neighbours may not have experienced ASB by her neighbour, this did not mean that she was not. She said that while her neighbour may be vulnerable, this did not make it acceptable for her to live in the conditions that were present. The resident said she was also vulnerable, and the landlord’s treatment was damaging to her mental health.
12. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 18 November 2022. It:
    1. Explained that as a landlord, it needed to allow for the rights of residents to live in their properties as they choose. It said that when it did need to become involved, such as this instance, its approach would be to support an individual rather than evict them.
    2. Said it investigated the resident’s ASB reports, but they had been unable to substantiate numerous allegations due to a lack of evidence. The resident only provided completed diary sheets on 16 November 2022. It reiterated that without sufficient evidence, it was unable to take any action.
    3. Said that it had tried a wide range of approaches to resolve the smell transference issue. The neighbour had made progress in maintaining his property, which resulted in the council removing the abatement notice. The landlord also concluded that there was minimal impact to other tenants in the block.
    4. Advised that it continued to work with several agencies to support her neighbour.
    5. Agreed to undertake repairs and improvement works in the resident’s property to minimise the impact of the smell transference.
    6. Assured the resident that it was conducting regular inspections of the communal areas and her neighbours property to ensure he was complying with the terms of his tenancy. The landlord offered the resident mediation to resolve the relational issues between her and her neighbour.
13. The resident remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s response due to the ongoing distress she has experienced due to the ASB.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

14. The resident has reported that issues with ASB have been longstanding, dating back to 2017. This is not disputed by this Service. However, this investigation has primarily focussed on the landlord’s handling of the resident’s recent reports from August 2021 to November 2022 that were considered by the landlord during the complaints process. This is because residents are expected to raise complaints in a timely manner so the landlord has the opportunity to consider issues while they are “live” and evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion.
15. The resident said that the landlord’s response to her reports of ASB affected the health of the household. It is outside our remit to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. The resident may wish to seek independent legal advice regarding this aspect of her complaint. The resident may also be able to make a claim via the landlord’s liability insurance. If this is something she wishes to do, she should make enquiries with the landlord accordingly. We will, however, consider whether the landlord’s response to the reports of ASB caused any distress to the resident.

ASB

16. We acknowledge the resident’s comments that the incidents she has reported have had a significant impact on her and affected her enjoyment of her home. When considering complaints relating to ASB, it is not the role of the Service to reach a decision on whether ASB has occurred. Instead, our role is to consider whether the landlord has taken reasonable and appropriate steps to respond to the resident’s reports. This report will therefore assess whether the landlord has acted in accordance with its policies and procedures and acted in a manner that is fair and reasonable in all of the circumstances.
17. The Housing Act 1996, as amended by the ASB Crime and Policing Act 2014, defines ASB as:
    1. conduct that has caused, or is likely to cause, harassment, alarm or distress to any person.
    2. conduct capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to a person in relation to that person’s occupation of residential premises.
    3. conduct capable of causing housing-related nuisance or annoyance to any person.
18. This Service recognises that bad smells emanating from another property could cause a nuisance or annoyance to a resident. Therefore, it is reasonable to consider the resident’s reports about her neighbour as ASB.
19. The landlord’s ASB policy states the landlord will:
    1. Investigate and monitor any risks.
    2. In determining the seriousness of the ASB and the proportionate action to take, it will consider the nature of the ASB, the frequency, and the impact on the resident and community.
    3. Be clear and realistic about potential outcomes and the timescales involved.
    4. Develop an action plan with the resident and provide them with information from other agencies who may be able to offer additional support.
    5. Use early intervention including mediation, warnings, and acceptable behaviour contracts.
    6. Consider enforcement action where there is sufficient evidence of a tenancy breach.
20. The policy acknowledges that there are many factors that could influence a person’s behaviour in ways that could lead some to perceive it as antisocial. Where an alleged perpetrator is vulnerable, and this vulnerability is related to reported incidents, the landlord said it offers them support to sustain their tenancy where it can. It also commits to adopting a multi-agency approach in preventing and tackling ASB.
21. Having considered the available information, the Ombudsman recognises that this has been a challenging case for the landlord to manage due to the needs of the resident’s neighbour. The landlord is required to balance its obligations towards the resident under her tenancy agreement, and its ASB policy, with its obligations to support the neighbour under his tenancy.
22. The landlord is also obliged to respect the confidentiality of the neighbour’s personal data and as such, this can impact the extent of information it can disclose to the resident about the case.
23. We have seen evidence of the landlord:
    1. Paying for contractors to clean the neighbours property to be cleaned.
    2. Arranging for the communal areas to be cleaned weekly.
    3. Conducting joint visits to the neighbour with Adult Social Care and the council’s Environmental Health department.
    4. Carrying out unannounced inspections of the neighbour’s property.
24. The above actions are appropriate and evidence that the landlord was proactive and committed to resolve the issues that were impacting the resident. It appropriately took formal action against the neighbour when it had exhausted other ways to support him in accordance with his tenancy agreement. This was reasonable.
25. Furthermore, the landlord explained to the resident that for it to act following her reports of ASB, it needed supporting evidence from her about the frequency, dates, and nature of specific incidents. It asked that she logs the incidents on diary sheets. That explanation accurately reflected the need for a landlord to have clear indications of ongoing disturbance on specific occasions for it to be able to consider allegations of ASB. This was reasonable.
26. The landlord advised the resident what action had been taken, within its limitations, and provided advice regarding moving properties. It committed to undertaking repairs and improvements in the resident’s property to try and improve the smell transference. It also offered the resident mediation with her neighbour. This was appropriate.
27. However, the resident maintained throughout the complaints process that she felt dismissed by the landlord. The resident said she did not feel like the landlord had taken her reports seriously. While the landlord did take proportionate action, there is a lack of evidence that the landlord offered support and reasonable empathy to the resident. It said on several occasions that it had taken impact statements from other residents within the block and the issues with smells were not impacting them. The landlord has not provided this Service with evidence that statements had been taken. This highlights a potential issue with the landlord’s record keeping.
28. Furthermore, the resident said that the landlord had not taken an impact statement from her. This was understandably frustrating for the resident and caused significant distress. The landlord’s failure to take an impact statement could appear as dismissive of the resident’s lived experience and lacked empathy. While obtaining impact statements are not set in the landlord’s ASB policy, we would expect as a minimum that the landlord would meet with the resident to discuss her concerns. Good practice would have been to undertake a risk assessment and subsequently signpost the resident to relevant support agencies.
29. It is of particular concern that the resident expressed that the ongoing situation was having a detrimental impact on her mental health. The landlord failed to address this in its complaint responses. This was inappropriate.
30. Overall, it is evident that the landlord took appropriate action when dealing with the resident’s reports of ASB. The landlord was involved with other agencies in supporting the resident’s neighbour to maintain his tenancy. It took formal action when it had evidence to do so, which was reasonable. However, there is no evidence that the landlord reasonably considered the impact that the ASB was having on the resident, nor did it satisfy itself that the resident was adequately supported.
31. We have therefore found service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.

Repairs

32. Prior to raising her complaint, there is limited information about the resident’s dissatisfaction with repairs. In June 2022, during a meeting with the landlord, the resident proposed improvements in the bathroom that she believed would help the smell transference issue.
33. The landlord refused some of the suggested work but agreed to undertake alternative work. It appropriately explained its reasons as to why it did not need to complete the suggested work. The explanation was thorough and reasonably managed the resident’s expectations. While the resident may disagree with the landlord’s decisions, it is entitled to rely on the qualified opinion of its staff and contractors.
34. Following discussions with the resident, the landlord agreed to:
    1. Box in pipework in bathroom and fit a new bath panel.
    2. Repair any holes in the walls.
    3. Lay new flooring in the bathroom.
35. The landlord also agreed to lay new flooring in the hallway.
36. The above actions were agreed by the landlord on a discretionary basis to alleviate the resident’s discomfort in her home. The landlord said that the agreed works were improvements, rather than repairs. It was reasonable that it agreed to undertake the work as it demonstrated that it was listening to the resident and wanted to find a solution to the problem.
37. This Service is aware that further repair issues arose because of the agreed improvements taking place. However, those issues are outside the scope of this investigation. Should the resident have concerns regarding the workmanship and quality of work undertaken, she should raise a new complaint directly to the landlord.
38. Ultimately, the resident requested improvements and/or repairs were undertaken to alleviate the smell transference from her neighbours property. The landlord agreed to undertake the work. Therefore, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of repairs.

Complaint handling

39. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out the Ombudsman’s expectations for how landlords should handle complaints. The Code encourages landlords to adopt a positive complaint handling culture that enables them to resolve disputes, improve the quality of the service it provides to residents, and ensure that complaints provide an opportunity for learning and positive improvement.
40. The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints process. The landlord should provide a stage 1 response within 10 working days of the complaint being raised, and a stage 2 response within 20 working days of the complaint being escalated. These timescales are in accordance with the Code.
41. The landlord issued its stage 1 response 10 working days after the resident raised her complaint. This was appropriate and in accordance with its policy and the Code.
42. However, the landlord failed to address the resident’s complaint that staff lacked empathy and dismissed her lived experience. The Code clearly states that landlords must address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions, referencing the relevant policy, law and good practice where appropriate. Its failure to respond to that aspect of the resident’s complaint was inappropriate and caused the resident distress, frustration and inconvenience.
43. The landlord’s complaints policy states that stage 1 complaints would be handled by a resident’s local officer. If a complaint was about the local officer, it would be handled by their manager.
44. The resident raised concerns that her local officer responded to her stage 1 complaint, despite part of the complaint being about them. However, the resident did not specifically name her local officer in the complaint. The complaint referred to landlord staff but was non-specific. In this case, the landlord responded in accordance with its policy.
45. The Code states that landlords may provide an explanation to the resident containing a clear timeframe for when a stage 2 response would be issued, if it could not adhere to the 20 working day timeframe. This should not exceed a further 10 working days without good reason.
46. The landlord issued its stage 2 response 30 working days after the resident escalated her complaint. The landlord explained that the delay was due to staff sickness. It gave the resident ample notice of the delayed response, which was appropriate.
47. The landlord’s stage 2 response failed to address her complaint about the landlord’s lack of empathy. This is a significant concern given it had already failed to address that element of the resident’s complaint at stage 1. This caused the resident considerable distress, frustration and inconvenience. Had the landlord responded to all of the resident’s complaints through its internal complaints process, she may not have needed to take the time and trouble to bring her complaint to this Service. This was inappropriate and a failing of the landlord.
48. Considering the above failings, we have found maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination

49. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
50. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of repairs.
51. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

52. Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord is to pay the resident £300 compensation, comprised of:
    1. £100 for the distress, frustration and inconvenience caused by the identified failings in its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
    2. £200 in recognition of the distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble endured due to the landlord’s complaint handling.

Recommendations

53. The landlord should conduct a survey to determine what repairs remain outstanding in the property.
54. The landlord should continue to engage with the resident regarding any ongoing ASB and ensure it manages the case in accordance with its ASB policy.