Notting Hill Genesis (NHG) (202338757)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202338757

Notting Hill Genesis (NHG)

28 November 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:
   1. Concerns about the concierge not providing visitor access to the carpark.
   2. Associated formal complaint.

Background

2. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, a housing association, and lives in a 2 bedroom flat in a mid-storey block. The tenancy began in 2010. The resident is physically disabled and requires the use of a wheelchair.
3. The landlord is a leaseholder of a separate freeholder which owns the block. The freeholder contracts a management company, whose responsibilities include the employment of a concierge service.
4. On 9 January 2023, a visitor of the resident attempted to gain access to the car park of the building in their vehicle. The resident was not present but rang the concierge to ask them to open the car park gate to allow his visitor entry. When the concierge did not do so, the resident complained the following day to the landlord.
5. Communication through all parties established that the access system was not working on that date, resulting in the concierge being unable to remotely open the gate. The resident was also informed there is no visitor parking permitted, so his visitor should not have been given access to the car park in any case.
6. The resident requested that a stage 1 complaint be logged on 19 January 2023, when he disputed the explanation provided by the landlord. The landlord responded on 23 January 203, when it confirmed there were no visitor spaces in the car park. The resident escalated the complaint the same day and the landlord issued its stage 2 response on 27 February 2023. It reiterated its earlier position but offered the resident £60 compensation plus a £50 goodwill gesture in recognition of the delay in providing its complaint response.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

7. The resident has multiple complaints logged with this Service, regarding a variety of different issues. It should therefore be noted that this investigation relates only to the issues detailed at paragraph 1 above.
8. In communication with the landlord, the resident stated that the incident made his health issues worse. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments, but it is beyond the remit of this Service to determine whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s actions and the resident’s ill-health. Such matters would be better dealt with as a personal injury claim (reflected at paragraph 42.f of the Scheme). While the Ombudsman cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced as a result of any service failure by the landlord.

The concierge not providing visitor access to the carpark

9. The resident emailed the landlord about the issue on 10 January 2023 and the landlord responded the same day, saying it would investigate the matter with the management company. The resident informed the landlord he always contacts the concierge to provide visitor access and made reference to an occasion in December 2022 when a wheelchair repair service was granted entry. The resident said he was simply expecting a ‘normal service’ from the concierge and accused them of being childish and stubborn for not pressing the button which would open the gate. The resident stated that the incident had left him frustrated and made his health issues worse.
10. The landlord provided an update to the resident 2 days later, advising him that the car park entry system had been broken so the gate could not be opened remotely. It apologised and acknowledged that the resident could have been informed of this at the time.
11. The resident felt this was an excuse and the concierge should have physically attended to open the gate. As the resident was not at home at the time, he had to ring his son to attend and provide access to the visitor with an entry fob. The resident said this made him angry and anxious and he accused the concierge of causing trouble, bullying and harassment. He made comments about the concierge being paid wages to “just sit in a chair” and “keeping their job”, regardless of how many complaints he makes. As per the scope of this investigation, consideration has not been given to any other complaints the resident may have about the concierge beyond this specific issue.
12. Internal communication showed the landlord querying the events of 9 January 2023 with the management company, which confirmed the concierge was not expected to open the gate for the visitor’s vehicle as there was no visitor parking. In addition, only residents with fobs could open the gate on that evening as the remote access system was not working. The landlord promptly informed the resident of this.
13. On previous occasions, when the remote system has been working, the concierge has pressed the button to grant entry for tradespeople and deliveries, which led the resident to expect access for his visitor on this occasion. However, the landlord and management company remained consistent in their messaging that visitor parking is not permitted. The management company said residents receive regular reminders about the parking regulations via the Locale portal.
14. It is recognised that the resident’s health and mobility issues may mean he is reliant on visitors’ attendance at the property. However it is important to note that it was not the case that the visitor who was not allowed entry, but rather their vehicle was not permitted in the car park. Visitors can enter via the main entrance as a pedestrian and, as the car parking has only allocated bays for residents, their cars must be parked outside the gates.
15. The lease states that the landlord and management company have the right to regulate and control the use of the car park and tenants should comply with reasonable directions regarding this. As a result, those parties were within their rights to take the position they did in relation to the visitor’s vehicular access.
16. The landlord responded quickly and appropriately to the resident’s concerns and made the necessary enquiries of the management company to ensure it was fully informed on the circumstances of the complaint. As there was little more it could do to investigate and resolve the complaint, this Service finds that there was no maladministration regarding the landlord’s handling of the concierge not providing visitor access to the car park.

Complaint handling

17. The resident asked for his complaint to be logged as stage 1 on 19 January 2023. He said this was the only way the landlord would take it seriously and the landlord was not interested in bridging the relationship between the tenants and the management company. The landlord provided a comprehensive response the following day, saying that it had investigated the matter with the management company and found (regardless of the broken entry system) the visitor had no reason to access the car park as there was no visitor parking on site. As the resident had been living at the property for a number of years, it believed he should be aware of that, and asked him to tell visitors to use the main entrance in future.
18. The landlord advised that it would log the complaint, but not as a stage 1. When the resident stated the landlord was refusing to log his complaint, it clarified its position that it was being logged as a quick fix complaint as opposed to a stage 1. The landlord’s complaint policy defines a quick fix as a “low-level, single issue complaint which we have identified has the opportunity to be completely resolved within 10 days with one action, does not need a complex investigation to put right and for which the resident doesn’t require a formal response.” This complaint fit that criteria, as the landlord had discussed the matter with the management company and provided the resident with a timely explanation.
19. The resident accused the landlord’s staff member dealing with the complaint of bullying and harassment. The landlord (via a manager of the officer dealing with the complaint) responded and reiterated there was no visitor parking. The landlord explained that, in line with its complaints policy, the matter had been quickly resolved without the need for a formal complaint response. Due to the resident not being satisfied with this, a stage 1 complaint was logged on 23 January 2023.
20. The landlord provided a stage 1 response on the same day it was logged. It again explained to the resident that the access control system was down on that occasion so the concierge could not open the car park gate from their desk. The landlord noted that, even if the system was working, visitors should not be using the car park as there is no assigned visitor parking. The landlord apologised for any inconvenience and frustration this may have caused the resident and explained the escalation process. The landlord’s policy states that a stage 1 complaint should be responded to within 10 working days and it met this timescale.
21. The resident escalated his complaint to stage 2 on 23 January 2023 and the landlord acknowledged it the following day. On 22 February 2023 the landlord emailed the resident and apologised that the stage 2 response was due, but the manager dealing with it had been unwell and had only returned to work that day. The resident responded by accusing the landlord of bullying and anti-social behaviour towards him, claiming the landlord was refusing to respond to the complaint. However, the Ombudsman has not seen any evidence to support these claims.
22. The landlord provided a stage 2 response on 27 February 2023, reiterating the same explanation it had provided at stage 1. It also noted that it had reviewed all communication between its staff and the resident and found no evidence of bullying or harassment as alleged.
23. The landlord’s response was 25 working days after the escalation was logged, where as its complaint policy states that stage 2 responses should be provided within 20 working days. In recognition of the delay, it offered the resident £60 compensation plus a £50 goodwill gesture. The landlord’s policy describes a goodwill gesture as discretionary, not exceeding £50 and given to recognise a shortcoming in the way it has delivered its service. The policy states compensation of up to £50 should be considered where service standards have not been met and the issue has taken slightly longer than expected causing some inconvenience to the resident.
24. Having regard to these policy provisions, this Service considers that the offer of £110 combined compensation was proportionate to the identified failings, given the short duration of the delay, the appropriate communication from the landlord prior to this and the fact it had no bearing on the substantive issue. It also meets the level of redress this Service deems suitable for a minimal service failure. As a result, the landlord has made an offer of redress to the resident which satisfactorily resolved this part of the complaint.

Determination

25. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the concierge not providing visitor access to the car park.
26. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Scheme, the landlord offered reasonable redress in relation to its complaint handling.

Recommendations

27. The landlord should pay the resident the £110 already offered for its delay in providing a stage 2 response. The reasonable redress finding is made on the basis of this sum being paid to the resident, as it recognised genuine elements of service failure by the landlord.