Notting Hill Genesis (NHG) (202015161)

A blue and grey text

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202015161

Notting Hill Genesis (NHG)

16 January 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 resident has complained about:
1. The landlord’s response to her not being provided with a key to access the main building entrance door at the start of the tenancy and the knock-on effect this caused to rent arrears.
2. The landlord’s handling of the signing of an application form for a grant.
3. The landlord’s request that she does not keep her front door open.
4. The landlord’s response to various reports of outstanding repairs within the property, specifically:
  1. a repair to a window.
  2. bathroom and kitchen works.
  3. peeling wallpaper.
5. The standard of communal cleanliness.
6. The landlord’s complaints handling.
The resident has also complained that the conduct of the landlord’s staff has been discriminatory.

Jurisdiction

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 this 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 has also complained that the conduct of the landlord’s staff has been discriminatory. As an example, she has referred to the issue of her front door being open and paragraph 42(f) of the Scheme states “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”. The serious nature of the resident’s concerns is noted. However, unlike the Service, the Court has the power to make a judgement, binding on the parties, on whether the landlord has been guilty of acting discriminatorily and in breach of the Equalities legislation.
Therefore, the resident’s complaint that the conduct of the landlord’s staff has been discriminatory and in breach of the Equalities Act 2010 is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction in line with paragraph 42(f) of the Scheme. We can however consider whether there have been failings by the landlord in respect the substantive issues or whether it has otherwise acted unfairly, unreasonably, negligently or unreasonably.

Background and summary of events

Scope of the investigation

The resident has forwarded to the Service correspondence with her landlord that relate to issues occurring after the Stage 2 response of May 2022. She has spoken to the Service about the issues, advising that nearly a year after the initial OT assessment, the landlord decided that the bathroom could not be adapted and recommended greater adaptations. She further states that she has accepted a transfer application as an alternative, but the landlord has offered properties with bathrooms that are also unsuitable. The resident has also stated that she agreed a transfer partly because of impact noise from the flat above which she thinks is also damaging her ceiling structure.
In the interest of fairness, the scope of this investigation is limited to the issues raised during the resident’s formal complaint. This is because the landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate a formal complaint and respond to any reported dissatisfaction with its actions prior to the involvement of the Service. Any new issues that have not been subject to a formal complaint can be addressed directly with the landlord and progressed as a new formal complaint if required. New issues have been cited in the report to place the complaint in its current context and to inform the recommendations and orders made.

Background and Policies and Procedures

The resident has an assured shorthold tenancy with the landlord that commenced on 13 July 2020. The resident was previously in temporary accommodation provided by the local authority. Her property is a flat in a Victorian converted building. The landlord’s correspondence notes that the resident has complex mental health needs including (Obsessive Compulsive Disorder) OCD. The resident has advised the Service that she is disabled and has issues with her eyes.
The resident signed the tenancy agreement virtually on 3 July 2020 due to Covid-19 social contact restrictions and the landlord signed it on 8 July 2020. The agreement confirms that the resident’s rent was £145.96 per week with no service charge. The agreement confirms the resident is obliged:
1. “To pay the Landlord the Total Weekly Rent and Other Charges as set out in paragraph 7 of this Tenancy Agreement as and when the same fall due.”
2. “To keep the interior of the Premises in a proper state of decoration and to keep all the internal fixtures and fittings in good order.”
3. “To keep any communal areas shared with other tenants clean and tidy and free from obstruction except that the Tenant shall not be liable for cleaning any areas for which such cleaning is provided in the service charge schedules (if any) attached to this Agreement.”
The landlord’s Repairs Responsibilities document dated August 2020 and the Responsive Repairs Policy of March 2021 states that the resident is responsible for “Internal decorations (except where we are painting to cover an area affected by a leak etc…).” The policy confirms that the landlord should complete Emergency repairs within 24 hours and Routine repairs within 20 working days. A Routine repair is defined as “non urgent work to rectify or prevent damage to, and ensure the proper working order of the property and its fixtures.”
The landlord’s Estate Management Procedure (March 2020) states that:
1. “Either as part of their tenancy agreements or estate agreements, residents are required to keep communal areas: Clean and tidy.”
2. “All staff working on estates need to have due regard to Health and Safety considerations. NHG is responsible for ensuring there are no Health and Safety risks to residents and visitors to our estates or schemes. Health and Safety risks may include…Fire Compartmentation issues.”
The landlord’s Estate Management Policy (11 September 2020) states that “We have due regard to Health and Safety considerations. We are responsible for ensuring there are no Health and Safety risks to residents and visitors to our estates. Health and Safety risks may include: … Fire compartmentation and other fire associated risks.”
The landlord’s Aids and Adaptations Procedure (May 2020) defines major adaptations as works above £1,000. The procedure states: “If the resident requests major adaptations carried out to their home, they should contact their LA or Social Services and request an assessment from an OT. They will visit them to discuss and assess their needs and send a referral on to the Aids and Adaptations team at NHG … The Aids and Adaptations team will then appoint a specialist Aids and Adaptation consultant to project manage the works. They will contact the resident and arrange a joint visit at their home with the OT to discuss the adaptations in greater detail. If the adaptations are feasible, the consultant will draw up a specification of works and will request the resident and the OT to agree and consent to the works. A specialist Major Adaptation contractor will be appointed to carry out the works under supervision of the consultant. The consultant will project manage the work and keep the service user and Major Adaptations team informed and up to date with the progression of the works.”
The landlord’s Adaptations Policy (effective November 2020) defines major adaptations as “substantial alteration often requiring structural changes to be made resulting in a permanent change to a property. This work could potentially be in excess of £1,000 and require project management resources. Changes can include, but are not limited to, level or ramped access to bedroom or bathroom.”
The landlord’s Decant Policy states that in the case of tenants “In circumstances where the move is for a short period of time (up to 10 working days) we may offer the tenant a cash incentive to stay with friends or relatives. If hotel or B&B accommodation is more convenient, we will cover the cost of the alternative accommodation and any agreed reasonable expenses.”
The landlord has a 2 stage complaints procedure. If a complaint is complex and needs investigating in more detail, it will send a response at Stage 1 within 10 working days. If any issues are outstanding it will agree an action plan.
At Stage 2 the landlord should respond within 20 working days. A manager will call to agree the next steps and ask whether the complainant would prefer a resident reviewer to resolve the complaint. Again, if any issues are outstanding at this time, it will agree an action plan with the complainant.

Summary of Events

There are no contemporaneous records when the resident first received the keys to the property. The resident has stated in her complaint that the keys provided did not open both the communal door to the block and her flat door, therefore did not provide access to her flat. She therefore remained in temporary accommodation after her tenancy commenced and accrued rent arrears. An email from her advocate dated 6 November 2020 stated that “she didn’t have full access to the property until September, as she didn’t have working keys.”
An internal email dated 3 September 2020 noted that “[the resident] moved in a while ago and has the correct key. She had some complaints about the communal floor and I booked … to clean the surface area”. Only dispute is the first few weeks rent, due to not having access to the keys and changing the lock”.
On 17 September 2020 the resident emailed the landlord stating she had “not had any advice on how to pay my rent and the have been trying since two months to get info ago and frustrated. I have had random texts and emails which I didn’t trust since no invoice was provided.” She also advised that she had difficulty using the landlord’s online payment system.
On 6 November 2020 the advocate advised that resident “is happy to pay the September rent due as soon as possible, but on the online portal she is not able to pay for one month, she either has to pay for the whole three months or nothing.” On 1 December 2020, the landlord responded, “I understand she had difficulties entering the property which was adhered to some time in August, which I am aware of and need to get the period adjusted so it reflects on the account and final figure, however, she would need to make regular payments toward her rent to stop the arrears from rising even further.”
After the resident emailed a manager directly on 26 March 2021, the landlord advised her that previous emails sent to the housing officer had not been received as the resident had used an incorrect address. The resident also contacted the Service in March 2021. Subsequently, on 26 July 2021 the Service wrote to the landlord stating the resident wished to complain about several issues including:
1. how the landlord handled her reports of the accessibility of the bathroom
2. how the landlord handled her reports of the cleanliness of the communal areas
3. how the landlord requested rent for a period she was not able to live in the property
4. how the landlord handled her reports of outstanding repairs in the property
On 19 August 2021 the Service chased up the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint as she had not received it.
On 27 August 2021 the landlord’s housing officer sent a Stage 1 complaint response:
1. It had spoken to the resident about accessibility to the bathroom and about obtaining a letter from her GP or OT. A surveyor would need to visit to assess, and it would chase this up and provide an update.
2. The communal areas had been cleaned on request. It had inspected and considered that the cleaning was acceptable. It would continue to visit to assess and follow-up with the cleaners if acceptable.
3. It had advised the resident to keep her front door shut as it was a fire door. It could meet her to discuss this further so there was a clear view of health and safety issues in the building.
4. After the resident had trouble accessing the property on 13 July 2020, it changed the locks the following day and gave the resident new keys; however, the resident did not return to the property until 4 August 2020 and the landlord’s only point of contact was her support worker. It had advised her to pay rent.

Furthermore, the resident had disregarded reminders about paying her rent which she believed was not official. It had provided options for paying the rent which were declined. It suggested a payment plan be arranged to bring down the arrears.

It was not aware of outstanding repairs. The resident could log new repairs.

In reports dated 23 and 28 February 2022, an OT from the local authority recommended the relocation of the wash hand basin and toilet in the bathroom to allow clearance for accessing the bathroom. She noted that the bathroom steps were not adaptable. The OT also recommended major adaptations within the kitchen, specifically a double kitchen wall unit to be installed above kitchen sink; the kitchen sink to be replaced with a lever style tap; and a double base unit with a work surface and a kitchen wall unit to be installed where the fridge was with the resident to relocate her fridge.
On 25 February 2022 the Service asked the landlord to escalate the resident’s complaint as she could not use internet and email. We advised:
1. The resident disputed that she was given the keys before the handover, and said the keys were not in the location that the landlord had said they would be. The resident disputed that she was given the keys on 14 July 2020. The resident stated that, as a result of this, she had to keep paying temporary accommodation costs for 3 extra months before she could fully move in.
2. The resident stated that she had been told verbally that the landlord would apply an adjustment to her rent, but that this was never put in writing.
3. The resident stated that she was unhappy that the landlord tried to get her to sign a form for a loan from the local authority and said that this was not explained properly.
4. The resident stated that she needed to keep her front door open as she was agoraphobic. The resident stated that they felt like the landlord was discriminating against them based on their disability.
5. The resident stated that communal cleaning had never been done while they have lived there.
6. The resident stated that she had outstanding repairs to her kitchen sink, bathroom basin, kitchen worktops, and stated that her wallpaper was peeling off and windows do not open and close properly.
Between 24 February 2022 to 17 March 2022, the landlord had internal discussions about decanting the resident based on the meeting with the consultants. On 17 March 2022 its Aids and Adaptations Team suggested that the landlord decant the resident due to her condition and the stress that would be caused.
On 7 April 2022 the resident reported that a window had a faulty hinge and could not close. The landlord’s records indicate that its contractor attended on 14 April 2022 to secure the window then booked further works to replace the hinge on 22 April 2022. The contractor could not gain access on 22 April 2022 so after the landlord rebooked the appointment for 3 May 2022.
The resident had raised a complaint about the handling of the window repair on 29 March 2022 and in a letter incorrectly dated 3 May 2021 the landlord’s housing officer sent the Stage 1 response. It noted that there had been 2 attempts to complete the window repairs, to replace the hinges and if there was no access for the third appointment of 3 May 2022, it would cancel the job.
The landlord also noted in the response that the resident had raised an adaptation request in respect of the steps from her bedroom to her bathroom. The Major Adaptions team had suggested that the resident be decanted for 15 days to allow the works to the steps from the bedroom. It asked the resident for her thoughts on this.
On 3 May 2022 the window contractor attended and found the window closed and safe. It advised that a scaffold would be needed to repair the broken hinge at the top of the window as it was not safe to do it from inside the flat due to the height. The landlord’s housing officer sent another Stage 1 response incorrectly dated 6 May 2021 noting that at the visit of 3 May 2022 the contractor deemed the window too high and requested scaffolding.
On 9 May 2022 the landlord consulted its fire safety team about the resident’s wish to keep her fire door wedged open. The fire safety team responded making reference to the landlord’s duties under Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005. It commented, “this includes the Flat Front Door, and the householder’s responsibility”, “if a fire was in her property the escape route would be compromised” and “doors to flats need to be fire-resisting and self-closing.”
On 12 May 2022, the landlord sent the Stage 2 response making the following findings:
1. There were discussions about providing a new key for a communal door in early August 2020 as the key did not turn smoothly in the lock. The housing officer copied and handed over the new key on 14 August 2020. Text messages also showed the resident had access to her property from early August 2020 and the resident emailed a rent query on 17 September 2020, therefore it did not agree that the resident was not able to move in until after three months.
2. However, during Covid it sent documents by email and completed tenancy sign-ups electronically. It was unclear whether the resident received a full welcome pack. As the resident’s experience could be better, it offered compensation of £150.
3. It had cancelled rent charges from the period until 14 August 2021 when the resident received a new key. However, this should not have taken 21 months, and in recognition of this failure, it offered compensation of £100.
4. The housing officer asked the resident to complete an income and expenditure assessment form to get a grant from the council, to help clear her arrears. Neither it nor the council had provided information to suggest that this was a loan, as the fund had only just become available. However, it accepted that the resident may have felt wary about applying for something she had no information about therefore it upheld the complaint and offered compensation of £50.
5. The housing officer’s request that the resident did not keep her door wedged open was to keep her, her neighbours and staff safe in the event of a fire. It copied details of the fire regulations it had taken into account. The resident could open her windows or go outside if she wanted more ventilation.
6. With regards to the cleanliness of communal areas, a one-off clean was carried out in the communal hallway. There was no service charge for cleaning therefore it was the responsibility of residents to keep communal areas clean and tidy. When it had visited, the communal area was clean, but it would arrange one-off cleans if needed. The housing officer would visit each tenant once a year during which it would inspect the stairways and take further action if needed.
7. With regard to outstanding repairs:
  1. The contractor which attended on 3 May 2023 for the window advised that it could not do the repair therefore an alternate contractor needed to be used. It offered £50 for the delay and would provide an update later that week. Previous delays were due to the resident cancelling on two occasions and for not answering on the third occasion.
  2. It had followed the recommendation of the OT in respect of the step up to the bathroom. If the resident confirmed acceptance to stay in a hotel for 1-5 nights and a payment of £20 a day for expenses, it would advise the adaptations team to arrange a start date.
  3. It had visited several times and could see not a defects or repair need to the kitchen worktops. It had noticed a build up of limescale which was the resident’s responsibility to deal with. With regards to wallpaper peeling, decorating her home was the resident’s responsibility.
8. It accepted it had delayed in dealing with the Stage 2 response due to operational challenges, a busy Easter period and staff annual leave. It had also delayed in responding to the Stage 1 complaint due to having to deal with over 100 families who had been flooded in July 2021. It would offer £50 compensation for each late response.
On 17 June 2022 the resident advised the Service that she remained dissatisfied as:
1. She did not have access to her flat. She had to go back 5 times to her block before she received keys that opened both the communal front door and her flat, and when she finally got access, she had to keep her former flat for a further month and pay rent.
2. The landlord had not completed the adaptations to her bathroom after 2 years and not provided an alternative.
3. Communal areas had not been cleaned for 2 years despite the landlord stating so.
At a visit on 24 January 2023, the landlord and its consultants determined that “The existing bathroom is unsuitable … and cannot be adapted due to the steps up into the bathroom, the inappropriate location of the WC on a half landing and the limited head room at the entrance and also within parts of the bathroom itself.” It could relocate the bathroom although the works would take 3-4 weeks, the landlord would have to pay to relocate the boiler and the resident would not be able to remain in the property during works. The landlord advised the resident of the findings on 31 January 2023. The landlord also suggested that it may be more practical at this point for the resident to be transferred to a suitable 1-bedroom property in the local area instead of completing the proposed required works at her property.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident not being provided with a key to access the main building entrance door at the start of the tenancy and the knock-on effect this caused to rent arrears

The resident required a key for the communal entrance door in order to be able to enter her flat. The landlord is required to ensure that its tenants have access to their properties therefore it should keep records that confirm it has provided keys for the property, as evidence that it has met its responsibility. In this case the landlord has not kept contemporaneous records of the contact between the parties relating to the keys for the resident’s property and of the action taken. Therefore, it is not possible to determine when keys were provided to the resident, what difficulties were reported by the resident and when, what agreements were made, when the resident attended her property and when she gained access to her property. This represents a failing in the landlord’s record keeping. It was particularly important that the landlord keep accurate records that it could rely on given the resident’s vulnerabilities and her difficulties accessing her property.
In responding to the resident’s complaint that she did not have the correct keys, the landlord in the Stage 2 response took the position that the resident had access to her property from early August 2020 although it provided new keys on 14 August 2020. Accordingly, the landlord waived the rent until 14 August 2020.
The resident has a contractual obligation to pay rent for her property from the start of her tenancy. It is fair and reasonable for a landlord to waive the rent if a tenant cannot access and make use of their property at all. In agreeing to waive the rent for a period the landlord took a reasonable approach to resolving this complaint.
However, it has not adequately justified why the rent would be waived until 14 August 2020. It has not provided details of the text messages relied upon in its complaint response. It referred to the resident’s email of 17 September 2020 in its complaint response. The email confirms that the resident accepted her obligation to pay rent but not when she gained access to her property. There is no other contemporaneous evidence that confirms a date of 14 August 2020, not did the Stage 1 response mention the date of 14 August 2020.
In summary, the parties do not dispute that the resident could not gain access to her property when her tenancy commenced due to problems with the keys provided, which required to landlord to give her new keys. The landlord has sought to resolve this complaint by offering to waive the rent for a period. However, it has not adequately justified why the rent would be waived until the date of 14 August 2020. Related to this is failings in the landlord’s record keeping in relation to the contact between the parties relating to the keys for the resident’s property and action taken.
The landlord offered £100 for the delay in waiving the rent until 14 August 2020. The landlord’s email of 1 December 2020 confirmed it would waive the rent for a period and in the landlord’s Stage 2 response it accepted that the delay was 21 months. It is noted that waiving the rent until 1 August 2020 would not have cleared the resident’s rent arrears as no payments were made to her rent account until 2021. Nonetheless, given the length of the delay and the fact that the resident had to pursue the matter as a complaint, the landlord’s offer was not proportionate.

The landlord’s handling of the signing of an application form for a grant

At Stage 2 the resident raised a complaint about the landlord asking her to complete a form for a loan from the local authority without adequate explanation. In the Stage 2 response the landlord addressed the resident’s concern about the form by clarifying that that the form was in fact for a grant application, and that any payment would be go towards her rent arrears.
The landlord accepted that it did not explain the purpose of the form when asking the resident to complete it and that she may have been unsettled as a consequence. It took steps to put this right by offering compensation of £50. This was a reasonable and proportionate offer as ultimately the completion of the form itself did not cause any detriment to the resident and in fact was potentially to her benefit.

The landlord’s request that the resident does not keep her front door open

The parties do not dispute that the resident kept open her front door at times and that the landlord asked her to keep it closed. In the landlord’s complaint responses, it advised that the door was a fire door and therefore needed to be closed for fire safety reasons. The landlord took appropriate steps to make an informed decision on this issue by consulting with its fire safety team and considering its obligations as a landlord.
The landlord also took reasonable steps to explain its decision and by quoting the legislation it had relied on in its complaint response.

The landlord’s response to various reports of outstanding repairs within the property

Window

Following the resident’s report of a repair to her window on 7 April 2020, the landlord initially made the window safe which was appropriate as this minimised the risk from the repair. The landlord then sought to complete the repair by making further appointments on 22 April 2020 and 3 May 2020. This response was in line with its target to compete routine repairs within 20 working days.
It transpired that the repair could not be completed on 3 May 2020. The failure to identify the need for scaffolding at an earlier stage and the need to arrange another repair added to the resident’s inconvenience. It was therefore reasonable that the landlord made an offer of £50 as redress.

Bathroom and kitchen

The resident through the Service complained about the handling of her request for adaptations to her property to make the bathroom more accessible. The landlord noted in the Stage 1 response of 2021 that it needed information from her GP or an OT before any works could be carried out. This was in line with its Aids and Adaptations policy which states that if residents want major adaptations carried out to their home, they should contact their council or Social Services and request an assessment from an OT.
It was not until 28 February 2022 that the landlord received the OT recommendations. The landlord’s internal correspondence indicates that it accepted the recommendations which was appropriate as the OT has the necessary expertise in identifying adaptations that may make a property more suitable for a resident to live in. The landlord showed an appreciation and awareness of how the works might affect and distress the resident by offering the resident a decant, firstly on 17 March 2022, then in the complaint responses on 3, 6 and 12 May 2022.
In the Stage 2 response the landlord offered a payment of £20 a day for expenses if she accepted temporary hotel accommodation. This was in accordance with the Decant Policy which states that it will cover the costs of a tenant’s reasonable expenses if placed in temporary accommodation.
The OT also recommended works in the resident’s kitchen in particular the replacement of her sink and new units/worktop. The landlord,
as stated, has accepted the OT recommendations and has sought access for works by offering decant accommodation. It therefore took appropriate steps to gain access to carry out the identified works to the kitchen.
The correspondence of 24 January 2023 indicates that adaptations have not been completed to the resident’s property and in fact there has been a reassessment of required works. These developments fall outside the scope of this complaint. It is recommended that the landlord contact the resident about raising a new complaint about the handling of works to her bathroom and kitchen during the period after the Stage 2 response of 12 May 2022.

Wallpaper

The Stage 2 response of 12 May 2022 noted that it was the resident’s response to rectify peeling wallpaper in her property. The resident’s tenancy agreement confirms that it is her responsibility to keep her property in a “proper state of decoration”. As such the landlord’s response was in line with the resident’s tenancy agreement, and therefore appropriate.

The standard of communal cleanliness.

The resident complained about the cleanliness of communal areas. As the landlord does not have a charge for providing a cleaning service, as confirmed by her tenancy agreement, it is the responsibility of the resident and the other residents in her building to clean the communal area. Therefore, there was no service failure by the landlord in not providing a cleaning service.
The landlord response of 26 July 2021 confirmed that it had cleaned the communal areas on a one-off basis. This was over and above its obligations. The landlord also offered in the Stage 2 response to arrange one-off cleans as necessary. This was a reasonable offer as it is not obliged to provide a cleaning service. However, so that the resident’s expectations are best managed it is recommended that the landlord makes clear the circumstances when it may arrange a communal clean itself and when it may ask residents in the response to carry out the cleaning.

The landlord’s complaints handling.

After the Service wrote to the landlord on 26 July 2021, the landlord’s Stage 1 response of 27 August 2021 was sent over 2 weeks outside the ten-day timeframe set out in the complaints procedure. The landlord offered £50 compensation for the delay and an explanation in the Stage 2 response. It thereby provided reasonable and proportionate redress for the delay. The Stage 1 responses of 3 and 6 May to the resident’s second complaint were delayed by over 3 weeks. However, the landlord did not acknowledge the delay of offer redress.
The landlord also offered £50 compensation for the delay in the Stage 2 response. The delay was around 7 weeks given that the Service had asked the landlord to escalate the complaint on 25 February 2022. This delay was significantly longer than the Stage 1 response, but the landlord offered the same compensation award. As such compensation for the Stage 2 delay was not proportionate and insufficient to resolve the complaint.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in respect of the resident’s complaint about not being provided with a key to access the main building entrance door at the start of the tenancy and the knock-on effect this caused to rent arrears.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s handling of the signing of an application form for a grant.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s request that she does not keep her front door open.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s response to a repair to a window.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s response to bathroom and kitchen works.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s response to her report of peeling wallpaper.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of the resident’s complaint about the standard of communal cleanliness.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in respect of the landlord’s complaint handing.

Reasons

The landlord has sought to resolve the resident’s complaint that she could not gain access to her property by offering to waive the rent for a period. However, it has not adequately justified why the rent would be waived until the date of 14 August 2020. Related to this is the failing in the landlord’s record keeping in relation to the contact between the parties relating to the keys for the resident’s property and action taken by the parties. The landlord also delayed in processing the waiving of the rent, and whilst it offered compensation, the amount was not proportionate to the circumstances.
Whilst the landlord did not adequately explain the grant application form it asked the resident to sign, if offered reasonable compensation as redress.
The landlord took appropriate steps to make an informed decision on the issue of the resident keeping her door open by consulting with its fire safety team and considering its obligations as a landlord. The landlord also took reasonable steps to explain its decision and by quoting the legislation it had relied on in its complaint response.
The landlord made safe the resident’s window and sought to complete the repair in line with its target to compete routine repairs within 20 working days. Whilst it transpired that another visit would be needed, the landlord offered reasonable compensation for the inconvenience.
It was in line with its Aids and Adaptations policy that the landlord sought an OT report for works to the bathroom and kitchen. The landlord sought access for the works by offering the resident a decant. In line with its Decant policy it offered a payment for the resident’s expenses if in temporary accommodation.
The landlord’s response that the resident was responsible for rectifying peeling wallpaper was in line with her tenancy agreement, and therefore appropriate.
It is the responsibility of the resident and the other residents in her building to clean the communal area. Therefore, there was no service failure by the landlord in not providing a cleaning service.
The landlord did not offer compensation for the delayed complaint responses of 3 and 6 May 2022. The offer of £50 for the delay at Stage 2 was not proportionate to the length of the delay.

Orders and recommendations

The landlord is ordered to:
1. pay the resident compensation of £700 comprising:
  1. The £350 offered in the Stage 2 response of 12 May 2022.
  2. A further £250 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord by the failure to adequately justify why the rent would be waived until the date of 14 August 2020 and for the delay in waiving the rent.
  3. A further £100 for the delays in the handling of her complaint.
2. review its procedure for providing keys/key fobs to new tenants to ensure that they operate correctly and there is a record that the keys have been received by the new tenant.
The landlord is recommended to:
1. write to the resident to confirm the status of the adaptations identified to her property and of any application made to transfer to another property.
2. contact the resident to confirm whether she wishes to make a new complaint about the handling of the adaptations after Stage 2 response of 12 May 2022, the handling of her transfer application and her reports of noise/ceiling repairs. If so, it should take down details and respond in line with the complaints procedure.
3. clarify the circumstances when it may arrange a communal clean itself and when it may ask residents in the response to carry out the cleaning.