Notting Hill Genesis (202305706)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202305706

Notting Hill Genesis (NHG)

31 January 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:
1. the impact of antisocial behaviour (ASB) on the resident’s health.
2. the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident has been an assured tenant of the landlord, a housing association, since 2016. The property is a 1 bedroom flat within a block. The landlord has stated that it does not have any vulnerabilities recorded for the resident. However, it said that communication it has received from the resident and her doctor refers to mental health issues and agoraphobia.
In February 2023 the resident raised concerns with the landlord about ongoing ASB from her neighbour since 2016. Following this, the landlord met with the resident in early March 2023 about ASB reports she had made to it over a 7 year period. On 10 March 2023 the landlord noted that it had opened an ASB case for the resident, which was in respect of past and ongoing issues. Later in March 2023 it noted internally that it had failed to follow the correct policies and procedures in respect of ASB reports from the resident. It said it had:
1. not opened an ASB case about the historically reported ASB.
2. not conducted interviews with the resident or her neighbour.
3. taken no action on diary sheets sent by the resident.
On 24 March 2023 the landlord told the resident it had requested band B housing priority for her so she could apply to transfer to suitable properties. It also told her it would be in contact to arrange an ASB interview. Later that month the resident told the landlord that she could not sit in the communal garden because of the “shouting and hollering” from her neighbour. She said that her agoraphobia had become worse because of the ASB issues.
In April 2023 the landlord completed a risk assessment and ASB interview with the resident. It noted:
1. ASB included loud music, swearing, shouting, putting letters through her door and standing in the communal area naked.
2. the resident said she had reported these issues for 7 years.
3. actions it had agreed with the resident and that it would support her housing transfer application.
In May 2023 the resident responded to the landlord about information it had noted during her ASB interview. She said she had not reported issues with her neighbour playing loud music. She also said she would be seeking “damages” from the landlord and suitable housing transfer. In July 2023, after the resident made contact with us, the Ombudsman requested that the landlord provide her with a stage 1 complaint response. The landlord did so on 9 August 2023. It said:
1. it had met with her on 9 March 2023, during which she outlined ongoing issues.
2. it had now raised an ASB case in order to investigate the resident’s concerns.
3. it has completed ASB interviews and a risk assessment.
4. it had met with its legal team on 21 June 2023 to review case information, diary sheets and recordings the resident had sent.
5. it had held a meeting with the neighbour’s support worker and was awaiting the outcome of this meeting.
6. it could not divulge further information relating to her neighbour due to General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR).
7. it would take relevant action to resolve matters.
The landlord apologised to the resident for the difficulties she had experienced. It awarded her £1,500 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the matter and the “considerable delays investigating this matter to an outcome”. The landlord also identified learning from the case. It said:
1. had housing officers worked more closely with line management, then a resolution could have been provided earlier.
2. it had requested that its housing officers work more closely with line management during ASB investigations.
The resident requested escalation of her complaint on 11 September 2023. She said the £1,500 was “welcome” but was an “insult” given the 7 years she had tolerated ASB from her neighbour. She said she would be escalating the matter to stage 2 of the complaints process.
In October 2023 the resident told the landlord that she had experienced depression and anxiety because of the situation. She said that she could not move because of rent arrears. She asked that it write off her rent arrears and pay her compensation of £8,000. Later that month the landlord wrote to the resident offering to clear her arrears of £5,000 and pay her compensation of £2,000.
In March 2024, after contact from the Ombudsman, the landlord wrote to the resident providing its stage 2 response to her complaint. It reiterated the offer made in October 2023. It said this was to take into account the “years of ASB” she had “endured”. It said:
1. ASB should have been managed much earlier.
2. clearing the arrears would help her in exploring re-housing through the local authority.
3. ASB was ongoing but it was now working to try to resolve this.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s ASB policy says that it is committed to supporting and showing empathy towards residents experiencing ASB. It says that it:
1. empathises with the detrimental impact that persistent ASB can have, and it will reflect this in its management of risk and communication.
2. will balance enforcement action with intervention.
3. will complete a risk assessment that is clear and realistic about the potential outcomes.
4. will be clear about timescales involved and will develop and an action plan with the resident.
5. will adopt a multi-agency approach to preventing and tackling ASB.
6. recognises that the individual needs of the perpetrator can be the reason they are causing ASB. It says in the first instance it will ensure the victim and perpetrator are offered support and resources they need.
The landlord’s complaints policy outlines that it defines a complaint as an expression of dissatisfaction about the standard of service or lack of action. It operates a 2 stage complaints process. It aims to respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and to those at stage 2 within 20 working days.

Jurisdiction

The impact of antisocial behaviour (ASB) issues on the resident’s health

What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). When a complaint is brought to the Service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
The resident said ASB issues had a negative impact on her health. We are sorry to learn of this and her comments are not disputed. However, paragraph 42.f of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal or procedure.
While the resident’s concerns are acknowledged, the Ombudsman cannot draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health. This is a matter which is most appropriately decided by a court following a claim for damages. It could also be considered by way of a personal injury claim through the landlord’s insurer, and it would be appropriate for the landlord to provide the resident with details of how she can make such as claim.
It follows that the resident’s complaint about this matter is not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to consider in line with paragraph 42.f of the Scheme. However, this investigation has considered the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the impact on her health and well-being when considering her complaint. We have also considered any distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced as a result of any failings by the landlord.

Scope of investigation

The resident has raised concerns that the landlord has not located a suitable property for her to move to in light of the ASB issues she has experienced. We note that it has registered her for a transfer in March 2023 and allocated her band B management transfer priority. It has also advised her on how to bid for available properties. We acknowledge and understand the reasons she wishes to move to a suitable property as soon as possible but the landlord’s ability to facilitate such a move would depend upon its available housing stock within the areas the resident has specified. We cannot determine the priority that the landlord should allocate to the resident for rehousing. This would be determined in line with its policies and procedures. However, when considering her complaint about its handling of her reports of ASB, we have considered how any failings impacted on its consideration of this option at an earlier stage.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB

The resident raised concerns about the landlord’s handling of her reports of ASB by her neighbour since 2016. While we have not seen these reports, the landlord has not disputed they were made by the resident. It has also acknowledged that it failed to respond to these reports and that, in doing so, its actions were not in line with its ASB policies and procedures.
It is appropriate for the landlord to assess the full circumstances of the case when considering how to act in response to ASB reports. Its policy sets out a range of action it could have considered taking in response to the reports. Its policy also says it will ensure the victim of the ASB is offered support and resources needed.
It was crucial for the landlord to adopt a victim-centred approach when addressing these issues. But there is no evidence it took any appropriate action to support the resident prior to March 2023. That is despite the ASB reports it acknowledged receiving over a 7–year period. This was a significant failing, and contrary to its own policies and procedures. It told the resident in July 2023 that it was working with her neighbour’s mental health support worker to provide an outcome on the case. It should reasonably have considered such action at a far earlier stage.
The resident said that when she previously asked the landlord’s housing officer about ASB action, she was told there was “no point” taking ASB action as it “would not work”. The landlord also noted in internal communication on 22 March 2023 that its housing officer said they had previously been advised by its legal team not to take action because of the circumstances of the case. But there is no evidence the landlord considered the resident’s circumstances at this time, or the impact of ASB issues upon her. Its policy states that it is committed to supporting and showing empathy towards residents experiencing ASB. As well as considering any appropriate ASB action it could take, it should reasonably have considered the impact of ASB issues upon the resident. It failed to do so over several years, despite the resident’s reports. This can only have resulted in the resident feeling it had given no consideration to how issues with her neighbour were affecting her.
It was positive that the landlord identified some learning during its stage 1 consideration of the resident’s complaint. At this time, it noted that, had housing officers worked more closely with line management, then a resolution could have been provided earlier, but it would also be appropriate for it to review the training and guidance provided to its staff. This is particularly in respect how it can appropriately support residents reporting ASB. We have ordered that it take this action. It would also be appropriate for the landlord to consider whether it has adequate processes in place for housing officers to seek advice/guidance about how to resolve ASB issues.
After it opened the ASB case in March 2023 the landlord began appropriate action such as ASB interviews and completing a risk assessment with the resident. It should reasonably have taken this action far earlier in order that it could fully consider the impact of the situation on the resident. Had it done so it could also have made earlier consideration of other action, such as the management transfer it later agreed.
It is important to note that it would not be reasonable to expect the landlord to compensate the resident for the impact of others’ actions. However, it had a duty to act on the ASB reports and take appropriate action to deter behaviour and resolve issues. Therefore, we have considered the impact of its failure to take reasonable steps in response to the reports.
During its consideration of the resident’s complaint the landlord awarded the resident compensation of £2,000 and credited her rent account with £5,000 to clear rent arrears. It said that it had done so to take into account the ASB the resident had “endured” and to allow her to explore her re-housing options through her local authority.
The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance (the remedies guidance) sets out the Ombudsman’s approach to putting things right for the resident when they have gone wrong. This can include compensation for avoidable inconvenience, distress or other unfair impact. The remedies guidance also sets out that it is appropriate to take into account the length of time involved when assessing the impact of failings. We acknowledge that the resident considers further redress should be awarded to her to recognise the delay in the landlord acting on her ASB reports.
We acknowledge what the resident has said about the impact ASB issues upon her, and we do not dispute this. We have given full consideration to the circumstances of the case and have made reference to the remedies guidance. We consider the award made by the landlord provides reasonable redress in recognition of the impact of its failings. We note the compensation payment paid towards the resident’s rent account was made with the aim of allowing her to explore her housing options. This was a positive and targeted action by the landlord that demonstrates it had meaningfully engaged to consider how its redress award could help to resolve issues for the resident.

ASB action taken by the landlord since March 2023

The landlord opened an ASB case for the resident in March 2023. We have seen evidence that it has since taken appropriate and escalating action in respect of issues. These actions have included liaising with external agencies and contact with the resident’s neighbour. Records show that it maintained contact with the resident. It told her of action it had taken, such as to seek police disclosure and to register her for a management transfer. It also told her it was liaising with its legal team about possible enforcement action.
However, there was more the landlord could have done to communicate with the resident about the ongoing action. Between December 2023 and March 2024 it simply told her that it was considering the next action in line with its policies and procedures. We acknowledge that the level of information it could provide to the resident was limited due to GDPR. But there was more that it could reasonably have done to explain the different actions it was considering and the likely timescales involved. That was particularly so given the past history of the case, where no action was taken in response to the resident’s reports. With this in mind, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to make reasonable efforts to assure the resident that adequate and appropriate steps were now being taken.
We acknowledge that the landlord had to balance action it was taking in response to ASB reports along with considering the circumstances of all parties. It must ensure it acts fairly and proportionately. This will often mean that progress in such cases can take time. But the landlord could have done more to explain in greater depth the action it was considering. Doing so would have helped to manage the resident’s expectations and reassure her. That it did not do so was a failing. We have found that the award already made by the landlord provides appropriate redress to the resident. However, due to its poor communication with her about how it was now acting to resolve ASB issues, we have found service failure in its handling of ASB reports. We have ordered that the landlord contact the resident to offer to meet with her to discuss the current position with the ASB case.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s complaints policy states that it will consider an expression of dissatisfaction about actions to be a complaint. Yet it was slow to address the resident’s concerns as a complaint. It should have been apparent when it met with her in March 2023 that she was dissatisfied about how it had responded to her past ASB reports. Further, when she emailed it in May 2023, she said that she considered there had been “negligence and failings”. But there is no evidence it took any steps to consider her concerns under its complaint process until we made contact in July 2023. That was a complaint handling failing, which meant it missed the opportunity to consider and respond to the resident’s concerns at an earlier stage.
The landlord promptly responded to the resident’s escalation request of September 2023, stating that it would move the case to stage 2 of its complaints process. But it then failed to provide an adequate complaint response. It sent an email to the resident in October 2023 setting out its increased offer of compensation. But this was not a stage 2 complaint response. It provided no details of how she could escalate the matter to the Ombudsman if she remained unhappy. Instead, it asked her to confirm that she was accepting the offer in “full and final settlement”. It was not until 6 March 2024 that it provided her with an appropriate stage 2 response. That was only after contact from us. Its actions were contrary to the Code and its own complaints policy. Ultimately, it delayed the resident accessing the Ombudsman’s independent review of her complaint.
We have found maladministration by the landlord in its complaint handling. We have found it provided reasonable redress in respect of failings in its handling of ASB. But it delayed in appropriately issuing a stage 2 response, sign-posting her to the Ombudsman. This meant the resident had to wait longer before her concerns were independently reviewed. With consideration to the circumstances of the case, and the remedies guidance, we have ordered an award aimed at recognising the impact of this failing. We have also ordered that the landlord remind complaint handling staff of the importance of providing timely complaint responses in line with its policy and the Code.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 42.f of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the resident’s concerns about the impact of ASB on her health fall outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was:
1. service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
2. maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord should:
1. write to apologise to the resident for the impact of the failings identified in this report.
2. pay the resident compensation of £7,300, made up of:
  1. the award of £2,000 and £5,000 (made to towards rent arrears) previous made to the resident.
  2. £300 in recognition of the impact of complaint handling failings.
  3. any payments already made should be deducted from the total amount.
3. contact the resident to offer to meet with her to discuss the current position with her ASB case.
4. remind complaint handling staff of the importance of providing timely complaint responses in line with its complaints policy and the Code.
Within 6 weeks of the date of this report the landlord should review its training and guidance to its staff in respect of ASB. This is particularly in respect of how it can appropriately support residents reporting ASB. It should also consider whether it has adequate processes in place for housing officers to seek advice/guidance about how to resolve ASB issues.
The landlord should provide the Ombudsman with evidence of its compliance with the above orders.

Recommendations

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord should contact the resident to:
1. confirm vulnerabilities it should record for her and consider the need for any reasonable adjustments if applicable.
2. provide her with information on how she can make a personal injury claim to its insurer.