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

Notting Hill Genesis (NHG) (202207971)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202207971

Notting Hill Genesis (NHG)

11 July 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 complaint about:
    1. A TORT notice.
    2. Fire safety visits.
    3. The cost of the visits.

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord. He lives in a ground floor flat in a converted terraced house.
  2. The resident said he was unhappy that the landlord had put a notice in the communal hallway in March 2022. This was in relation to items left in the area that needed to be removed. At the time, he said this was harassment. He raised a complaint on 11 March 2022 as his housing officer had not responded. He said this was the twelfth visit to inspect the hallway and this had been dealt with in the past. He asked how much rent money the landlord spent on visits to properties.
  3. The landlord sent a stage 1 complaint response on 22 April 2022. It apologised for the delay in responding. It explained that the notice in the hallway was a TORT notice to ask residents to remove items in the hallway. It did not intend to cause offence or harassment but this was for fire safety reasons. It said that its contractor completed the visits each month. They would not remove items but would instead tell the landlord if any action was needed. It was told about the TORT notice on 16 March 2022 and needed to follow up to ensure the communal hallway was clear. It provided a copy of its complaints and compensation policy and confirmed the resident could escalate the complaint if he remained unhappy with its response.
  4. On 11 May 2022, the resident reported that nothing had been changed and that there had been another visit that day. The operative had not made it clear whether he was acting on the landlord’s behalf. The resident reiterated that the matter involving items in the communal hallway was settled 18 months prior and said that this was now harassment. He wanted the complaint to be escalated. He also asked for a list of all visits for fire safety and the cost of this over the previous 2 years. The landlord confirmed it had passed on the resident’s communication on the same day.
  5. The resident reported another visit on 4 July 2022. The operative had said they were there to inspect the hall and he had turned them away as this had been done 15 times. They then returned and the resident had spoken to someone on the phone who said they were dealing with the fire service. He asked that the purpose of the visit was put in writing, and this was refused. They said that legal papers would be issued which he felt was intimidation. He added that the complaints department had ignored the request for the complaint escalation.
  6. The landlord responded on the following day to confirm the visit was to complete works recommended as part of a fire risk assessment. An appointment was then arranged for 7 July 2022 but the resident reported that no one had attended.
  7. A further fire risk assessment was completed on 18 July 2022. On the same day, the resident chased a response to his complaint escalation and confirmed that he had approached the Ombudsman.
  8. The resident contacted the Ombudsman on 18 July 2022 to advise that there had been around 15 visits from various individuals to inspect the communal hallway and this had been found to be satisfactory previously but operatives kept attending. Nothing had happened since his request for the issue to be sent to the landlord’s complaints department and he was concerned that the landlord was wasting money by carrying out these actions. He wanted the landlord to replace its complaints department with an external office, provide a letter ordering all personnel visiting to inspect the hall to leave and compensation for those affected. He also noted concern about the condition of his boiler.
  9. The Ombudsman contacted the landlord on 24 August 2022, asking it to respond to the resident’s complaint by 9 September 2022. The resident said that he did not receive a response and further contact was made by the Ombudsman to the landlord on 27 September 2022, asking it to respond within 5 working days.
  10. The landlord issued a stage 1 complaint response on 4 October 2022 and explained the following:
    1. It acknowledged the complaint was about visits by numerous housing officers to inspect the hallway as a potential fire risk, that the officers had threatened to seize property, its communication, and the replacement of his boiler.
    2. It confirmed that its contractors (on behalf of its fire team) had been visiting properties and serving TORT notices on items stored in communal areas that were causing a potential fire risk. This was part of keeping the buildings safe. These were not housing officers but worked for a third party.
    3. The contractors needed to serve TORT notices on items that should not be there. These gave notice to residents that the items should be removed from the communal areas and returned to their flats by a certain date, or they would be seized and disposed of.
    4. It apologised if the resident felt its communication had been poor, whether it be about the fire inspections or any other matter. It said it would work with the resident’s housing officer to ensure all communication was kept up to date and inform him of any inspections where it could.
    5. It was unsure what concerns the resident had raised about the replacement of his boiler, but it had requested an update from its heating and hot water team. It asked the resident to share any other information.
    6. It did not uphold the complaint as its process was a part of keeping its buildings and residents safe. It apologised if this had not been communicated to him properly. It apologised for the delay in providing its response and offered £50 compensation.
  11. The resident asked the landlord to escalate the complaint on 10 October 2022 as he did not feel it had addressed his concerns. He noted that the landlord had accepted the number of visits as fair and had not acknowledged that the hallway had been accepted as satisfactory, with photographs as supporting evidence. It had also failed to consider his concern about the cost of the visits. He has also asked for the “section and subsection of the act of parliament” upon which it depended and remained dissatisfied that it had taken 7 months to provide a response. He said that the boiler issues were the subject of a separate complaint.
  12. Following contact from the resident, the Ombudsman wrote to the landlord on 12 December 2022 and asked it to respond to the complaint at stage 2 by 20 January 2023. A further chaser was sent to the landlord on 24 April 2023 as the resident had not received a response.
  13. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 2 May 2023 and explained the following:
    1. It had previously issued a complaint response in April 2022 about the same issue of inspections of the communal areas and TORT notices. It had confirmed that the TORT notices were issued by its contractors, as instructed by its Fire Safety team. It added that its contractors visit all stock monthly and would make repeat visits to properties that had been flagged as not being compliant with fire safety regulations (for example, where items that may cause a fire safety risk were being stored in communal areas).
    2. It understood that the resident was dissatisfied that these visits were unannounced but advised that visits to communal areas to inspect building safety did not need to be pre-arranged with residents, but often required a resident to provide access to the contractor if it did not hold keys for the communal door. It appreciated that this could cause inconvenience particularly if this happened on more than one occasion and other residents may not be home to provide the access. It hoped that the inconvenience was minimal as it was only access to the communal area that was needed.
    3. It apologised for the inconvenience caused by the multiple visits and appreciated the help the resident had provided on numerous occasions to enable the necessary access. This was unavoidable as it needed to ensure that the building was safe. In recognition of the amount of access requests and inconvenience caused, it offered a goodwill gesture of £50.
    4. In relation to the cost of the visits, it said that these were not recharged to the resident via his rent and its contractors were paid an overall contract fee rather than an individual fee for each visit. The purpose of the multiple visits in this instance was to ensure that the communal area was free of any fire safety risks and was therefore in line with fire safety regulations. It felt that its earlier response could have gone into more detail about the costs and unannounced visits which may have prevented the resident from escalating the complaint.
    5. It apologised that the resident’s request about its fire safety policy was not responded to and attached a copy of its building safety policy which provided further detail on the fire safety legislation it adhered to. It confirmed that he could find more information on its website.
    6. It noted that the replacement of the resident’s boiler was mentioned within the Ombudsman’s correspondence but not within his stage 2 escalation request and it was unclear as to what remained outstanding. It confirmed that a new boiler was installed on 29 September 2022 and that the resident had reported a leak on 9 January 2023 which it attended to and resolved. It did not believe that its handling of the boiler replacement formed part of the resident’s first complaint but confirmed that this could be dealt with as a separate complaint if he provided further details.
    7. It had not found any evidence to uphold the complaint about the conduct of housing officers. It understood that the conduct concerns were in relation to his belief that it was housing officers completing the visits and issuing TORT notices. It had provided clarity that these visits were carried out by its contractors. It acknowledged that there had been service failures in its communication. It had acknowledged that the stage 1 complaint response was delayed and noted that his escalation request on 10 October 2022 was missed due to human error as the complaint handler was on annual leave. This error had not been brought to its attention until recent contact by the Ombudsman and it had not been aware that such a significant delay had occurred. It apologised that this had happened and confirmed that its housing officers and managers would be setting aside time each day to review requests to prevent emails being missed again.
    8. It appreciated that its poor communication had caused frustration and inconvenience. In acknowledgement of the failures identified, it offered the resident £380 compensation, comprised of £50 for the inconvenience caused by multiple contractor visits, £250 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its communication failures, including the delay at stage 2, £50 for the delay in issuing its response at stage 1 (as previously offered), and £30 for its failure to respond to each aspect of the complaint in its stage 1 complaint response.
  14. The resident referred his complaint to the Ombudsman as he remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response. He felt that the visits were a “waste of money” and was dissatisfied that these continued.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. Alongside the complaint under consideration, the resident raised other concerns with the landlord, including matters related to his boiler, the annual gas safety inspection, his rent account, the condition of the garden and its communication with him. The resident’s concerns about his boiler were raised as part of the resident’s complaint to the Ombudsman in July 2022 but this, and the other concerns raised, did not form part of the resident’s first complaint to the landlord under consideration, and will not be addressed as part of this investigation. This is because the landlord needs to be provided with the opportunity to respond to the resident via its internal complaints process before the Ombudsman can investigate.
  2. The resident has raised several further complaints with the landlord and has approached the Ombudsman. We have 2 further cases open for him under references 202333974 and 202333817. These complaints are separate from the one under consideration, which exhausted the landlord’s complaints process on 2 May 2023, and broadly concern the landlord’s communication, handling of complaints, and handling of a gas safety check. As these form part of separate investigations, these matters will not be considered as part of this report.
  3. In line with the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint-handling failure, and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not acted within a reasonable timescale. The resident initially raised a complaint on 11 March 2022 which was responded to at stage 1 on 22 April 2022. This complaint related to the same issues that were later responded to at both stages of the complaints process between October 2022 and May 2023. The resident asked to escalate his complaint to stage 2 on 11 May 2022, however no response was issued which will be discussed in further detail below. The Ombudsman has considered events from 2 March 2022, when the resident first raised his concerns.

Policies and procedures

  1. The resident’s tenancy agreement confirms that the landlord is responsible for keeping common entrances, halls, stairways and passageways in reasonable repair, safe, and fit for use by the tenant, their household, and visitors. The resident must not do, permit, or suffer anything which is a danger to health and safety. The resident must also cooperate with other residents to help keep the communal areas clean, tidy and free from obstruction. The landlord’s Resident Handbook confirms that residents must not leave any goods or belongings in shared areas, particularly items that may cause a fire or an obstruction.
  2. The landlord’s Communal Areas policy states that it has a zero-tolerance approach to the storage of items in communal areas, noting that residents are not allowed to store any items in the communal areas and that any items may be removed. Where items found within communal areas cannot be removed at once by a resident, it would serve a TORT notice, allowing the resident 14 days to remove them. If items are not taken away within the timescale, it would remove and dispose of them. Where the items are of a high risk of contributing to or spreading fire, these would be removed immediately.
  3. The landlord’s estate inspections procedure states that inspections of communal areas are completed monthly so that issues are noted and dealt with before they become serious, and to ensure that communal areas are maintained effectively. The procedure further states that residents should be made aware of upcoming inspections at least 7 days in advance. During inspections, officers should ensure that communal areas are adequately lit and kept free of graffiti, litter and dumped items. Items found stored in internal communal areas should be considered a health and safety risk. They should be treated as abandoned goods and a TORT notice issued.
  4. The landlord’s complaints policy (March 2023) states that it has a 2–stage formal complaints process. It confirms that a resident may make a complaint to any member of staff. At stage 1, the landlord should contact the resident to acknowledge the complaint within 2 working days and provide an expected timescale for response. The “local officer” would usually handle the complaint at stage 1. It would aim to respond within 10 working days of the complaint being made.
  5. If a resident requests a review of their complaint, they should be contacted within 2 working days to acknowledge the request and provide a target response timescale. It should issue its response within 20 working days of the complaint being logged. If, at any stage, there is likely to be a delay, the landlord would be expected to contact the resident, explain the reason for the delay, and provide a revised response date.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint about the issuing of a TORT notice, multiple fire safety inspections, and the cost of the visits.

  1. The resident’s complaint focuses on the issuing of a TORT notice for the removal of items, the number of visits made to the property for fire safety inspections, and the costs incurred by the landlord in completing a monthly inspection. In this case, the landlord has acknowledged that there were delays in its communication with the resident, and that the resident was inconvenienced by needing to allow access to the property for inspections of the communal hallway.

TORT Notice

  1. The resident initially raised concerns in March 2022 that a notice was left in the communal hallway relating to the removal of objects. He said that this was harassment and later said on 3 April 2022 that if the items were removed without a court order, he would call the police as this would be theft. It is unclear from the evidence provided as to how many items there were, what the items were, or who the items belonged to. The resident has not mentioned at any stage that the item(s) belonged to him, and it is unclear as to whether the issuing of a TORT notice affected him individually.
  2. A TORT notice is a legal notice issued in line with the Torts (Interference with Goods) Act 1977 which says a landlord may dispose of a resident’s items where objects have been abandoned on private land or property, of which the landlord has become an ‘involuntary bailee’. The notice is intended to notify the owner of the items that they would be removed within a specific timescale. While the Ombudsman appreciates the resident’s concerns about items being removed by the landlord, it followed the correct process by issuing a TORT notice for the removal of items and it would have been entitled to remove the items had they not been removed by the date included on the notice.
  3. Discretion for the decision on whether to allow the storage of personal belongings in communal areas lies with the landlord. The landlord’s “zero tolerance” approach as outlined in its policies is considered reasonable and allows it to follow its statutory obligations under the Regulatory Reform (fire safety) Order 2005. This Order includes an obligation to ensure that it takes general fire precautions, including measures to reduce the risk of fire, and spread of fire, on the premises; measures in relation to the means of escape from the premises; and measures for securing that, at all material times, the means of escape can be safely and effectively used.
  4. There is no evidence to suggest that the TORT notice was issued inappropriately. Nevertheless, the landlord acted reasonably by apologising if the resident felt harassed by the notice and confirming that this was not its intention. The landlord provided further clarity to the resident in its later complaint responses, confirming that the process was to ensure the buildings were safe and that individual belongings were removed from the communal areas and stored in a resident’s own individual property. The action – to ask individuals to remove personal items from the communal areas – was also in line with both the resident and landlord obligations under the tenancy agreement and, as such, is considered reasonable.

Fire Safety visits to the property

  1. On 11 March 2022, the resident initially raised concerns that there had been approximately 12 inspections of the communal area. The period in which these visits were said to have been completed is unclear. He raised specific concerns that matters involving items left in the communal area had been dealt with in the past. Within its first complaint response on 22 April 2022, the landlord acted reasonably by confirming that its contractors completed a monthly inspection of the communal areas for fire safety compliance purposes. However, it could have done more to explain why it did so and set out its relevant obligations in order to respond to the resident’s concerns more fully. The resident remained concerned that the visits continued following the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response.
  2. The resident raised specific concerns that matters involving items in the communal area had been settled 18 months prior in his communication to the landlord on 11 May 2022. He also raised concerns that the visits were unnecessary. The Ombudsman appreciates the resident’s comments about the number of visits; however, the landlord has an ongoing obligation to ensure that its properties and communal areas are still fire safety compliant. While the communal areas may have been found to be satisfactory in the past, this would not mean that that landlord did not need to complete further visits to ensure that these stayed compliant. The visit around 2 March 2022 proved necessary due to the presence of items in the communal area that needed to be removed, even though there had been earlier visits.
  3. Within its later responses to the resident, the landlord offered an appropriate explanation as to why it completed the monthly visit in line with its policies and procedures. As per the Regulatory Reform (fire safety) Order 2005 set out above, the landlord has a legal responsibility to ensure that its properties are kept clear of hazards and to minimise the risk of fire. It is reasonable for the landlord to ensure that its zero-tolerance approach to items left in communal areas is adequately checked and action is taken where needed. The landlord takes a proactive approach to inspecting the communal areas of its properties monthly and is entitled to outsource this work to qualified professionals. It is noted that the contractor used by the landlord specialises in fire precaution and safety.
  4. In his communication to the Ombudsman, the resident outlined that he wanted the inspections to stop, and a letter from the landlord ordering all personnel visiting to inspect the hall to leave. The landlord acted in line with its legal obligations by inspecting the communal areas of the property for fire safety purposes and it would not be proportionate or reasonable for the Ombudsman to order the landlord to stop completing these visits as this may put the landlord in breach of its statutory obligations.
  5. The landlord acted reasonably by finding that the resident was likely inconvenienced by the unannounced visits due to the need to allow the contractor access to the communal area by opening the communal door. It was reasonable for it to offer a goodwill gesture to acknowledge the inconvenience caused. However, it would have also been reasonable for it to have considered other actions to prevent ongoing inconvenience to him, such as holding a key for the communal door and providing this to its contractor when needed.
  6. The resident was not made aware of the monthly inspection in advance as per the landlord’s estate inspection procedure. The landlord said that it did not need to make residents aware of the visits. However, its estate inspection procedure confirms that residents (and resident monitors) should be made aware of monthly inspections 7 days in advance. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to ensure that it informed the resident of the visits accordingly in view of the acknowledged inconvenience and in line with it policy. Doing so may have prevented some of the inconvenience caused to the resident.
  7. Over the course of the complaint, the resident asked for specific information related to the total number of visits made to the property (May 2022) and the Ombudsman has not seen evidence that this was responded to at any stage which amounts to a failing. He also noted in October 2022 that the landlord had accepted the number of visits to the property as fair despite earlier visits finding that the communal area was satisfactory. It would have been fair for the landlord to have addressed the resident’s specific concern and to have explained why the ongoing visits were necessary despite earlier visits.

Cost of the visits

  1. The resident has said that he feels the number of visits to the property amount to a “waste of money” and wants them to stop. As above, it is not within the Ombudsman’s remit to order the landlord to stop completing the visits required for fire safety purposes. The Ombudsman has explained to the resident that the Regulator of Social Housing makes decisions about whether services the landlord provides are in line with its standards on financial viability and value for money, and that this is not within our jurisdiction to consider. We can, however, investigate how the landlord responded to his specific concerns.
  2. The resident initially asked about how much rent money was being spent on completing the visits to the property in his complaint on 11 March 2022. However, this was not addressed within the landlord’s complaint response. He pursued his concern further as part of his first escalation request on 11 May 2022, asking for the total number of visits and the cost of the visits over the previous 2-year period. It is noted that the landlord did not respond to the resident’s escalation request at this stage and did not address this aspect within its further stage 1 complaint response in October 2022, which is discussed in more detail below.
  3. The landlord later acknowledged the resident’s concern in its final complaint response on 2 May 2023 and confirmed that the costs of the visits were not recharged to the resident via his rent and its contractors were paid an overall contract fee rather than an individual fee for each visit. It acted reasonably by acknowledging that its stage 1 complaint response could have done more to address this concern. However, it did not acknowledge that he had initially raised this concern around a year prior, and that the delay was likely to have caused uncertainty and frustration.

Complaint handling

  1. Within his communication to the Ombudsman, the resident said that he was looking for the landlord to replace, and outsource, its complaints department. It is not within the remit of this Service to order the landlord to outsource its complaints department, but we are able to investigate how the complaint was handled. When investigating, the Ombudsman decides on whether the landlord has acted in line with its policies and procedures, and the Complaint Handling Code. We can make orders or recommendations where the landlord’s existing policies or practices may give rise to further complaints. This may include consideration of whether the landlord needs to learn lessons from the case and make service improvements.
  2. The resident initially asked for a complaint to be raised on 11 March 2022 following a lack of response from his housing officer. The landlord did not provide any form of acknowledgement of the complaint until 4 April 2022 which was several weeks later and outside the timescales set by its policy. The landlord sent the resident its stage 1 complaint response on 22 April 2022, which was 29 working days following the complaint being made and outside of the 10 working day timescale at stage 1.
  3. The landlord acted reasonably by apologising for the delay in issuing its response. However, the Ombudsman has not seen evidence that the resident was adequately updated as to when he would receive a response, with the landlord’s correspondence to him suggesting that a response would be sent on 8 April 2022. The resident needed to spend time and trouble pursuing the complaint. The landlord should have considered offering compensation for any inconvenience caused by the delay to put things right at this stage.
  4. The Ombudsman initially published the Complaint Handling Code in July 2020. It has since been updated as of April 2022 and became statutory in April 2024. The Code is intended to set out requirements for member landlords that will allow them to respond to complaints effectively and fairly. At the time of the complaint, the landlord was expected to address each aspect of the complaint and conduct the investigation in an impartial manner.
  5. The landlord’s stage 1 investigation was overseen by the member of staff who formed the subject of the complaint. This was not reasonable and shows a lack of impartiality in the landlord’s handling of the complaint at this stage. The landlord should have assigned a different member of staff to investigate the resident’s concerns to ensure that its response was impartial and that a fair investigation was conducted. In addition, the response did not address specific concerns the resident had raised about how much money had been spent on visits to the property, which was likely to cause frustration.
  6. The Ombudsman has seen evidence that the resident asked for his complaint to be escalated on 11 May 2022 as there had been a further visit to the property and he felt the matter had been dealt with 18 months prior. He also asked for specific information about how many visits had been completed and the cost of the visits over the previous 2 years. Despite the landlord confirming that it had passed the resident’s escalation request on, he needed to spend time and trouble pursuing a response both himself and via the Ombudsman, which was likely to cause inconvenience. This has not been addressed by the landlord within its later responses.
  7. Following further contact from the resident in August 2022, the Ombudsman wrote to the landlord on 24 August 2022 and asked it to respond to the resident’s complaint. At the time, the Ombudsman was not aware that the resident had received a stage 1 complaint response and asked the landlord to respond at stage 1 by 9 September 2022. The resident informed the Ombudsman that he had not received a response, and a further chaser was sent to the landlord on 27 September 2022, asking it to respond within 5 working days. It was a failing that the landlord did not respond to the Ombudsman’s requests within a reasonable period.
  8. The landlord did not acknowledge that it had provided a stage 1 complaint response previously about the same issues. It should have been able to recognise that it had already issued a stage 1 complaint response and have then escalated the complaint to stage 2 instead of restarting, and causing delay in concluding, the complaints process.
  9. The landlord issued a new stage 1 complaint response on 4 October 2022, addressing the specific bullet points included within the Ombudsman’s communication to it. It did not acknowledge that it had not acted in line with the resident’s escalation request of 11 May 2022. Following our instruction, the Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to contact the resident to gain a greater understanding of the complaint to allow for a full response. This did not happen as the response was brief and provided little understanding of the resident’s concerns. The landlord’s failure to address the resident’s prior reasons for escalation meant that his requests for information about the number of visits are still unresolved.
  10. The resident asked for his complaint to be escalated on 10 October 2022. The Ombudsman has not seen any evidence that the landlord communicated with him about the complaint following this, and he needed to spend more time and trouble approaching the Ombudsman for support. The Ombudsman initially asked the landlord to respond to the resident’s escalation request by 20 January 2023, and sent a further request for it to respond to the resident on 24 April 2023.
  11. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 2 May 2023, which was 141 working days since his request for the complaint to be escalated. This represented an unreasonable length of time. The landlord has acknowledged its poor communication and delays within its stage 2 complaint response. However, despite acknowledging that it had previously sent the resident a response in April 2022, over a year prior, about the same issues, it did not acknowledge that it had not escalated the complaint when asked.
  12. There were delays at all stages of the complaints raised in this case. The landlord acknowledged delays in its handling of the complaint on 4 October 2022 and 2 May 2023 and said, in its final response, that its housing officers and managers would be setting aside time each day to review requests to prevent emails being missed again. This was a reasonable point of learning to prevent similar failings.
  13. The Ombudsman has made recommendations and orders to the landlord in the time since the resident’s complaint about its complaint handling. Most recently, in April and May 2024, the landlord took steps to remind staff of changes that were needed to its complaint handling service in response to the Complaint Handling Code becoming statutory on 1 April 2024. This included information relevant to its response timescales. It also intends to manage complaints centrally from this month (July 2024). The Ombudsman has not made any specific learning orders in this case for the landlord to act on. However, the landlord has been asked to write to the resident to outline changes it has made to its complaints process to improve its service delivery since his complaint.

Summary

  1. In summary, the Ombudsman has found service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns. The landlord acted reasonably by offering a clear explanation to the resident, setting out the reasons for the TORT notice and visits to the property. It also acted reasonably by acknowledging failures in its complaint handling and communication. While its total offer of £380 (made up of compensation and a goodwill gesture) goes some way to acknowledge the inconvenience caused to the resident, this is not considered proportionate in view of the other failings found in its handling of the first complaint and escalation request. Several orders have been made below.

Determination

  1. In line with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s complaint about the issuing of a TORT notice, fire safety visits, and the cost of the visits.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks, the landlord is to write to the resident to apologise for the failings outlined in this report.
  2. Within 4 weeks, the landlord is to pay the resident an additional £150 compensation in recognition of the complaint handling failures found. It should ensure that its earlier offer of £380 is also paid to the resident, if it has not already done so.
  3. Within 4 weeks, the landlord is to consider whether there are steps it is able to take to minimise the inconvenience caused to the resident by the communal area inspections, such as ensuring that he is made aware of the inspection in advance, or providing a key for the communal front door to its operatives to minimise the impact of the resident needing to allow access. It should write to the resident setting out its position.
  4. Within 4 weeks, the landlord is to write to the resident setting out the service improvements it has made to its complaint handling service since the time of its final complaint response to him (May 2023).
  5. The landlord is to provide evidence of compliance with the above orders to the Ombudsman within the specified timescales.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord contacts the resident and signposts him to relevant information about its financial expenditure for further clarity on how it uses its budget.
  2. The landlord is to confirm its intentions in relation to the above recommendation within 4 weeks.