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

Notting Hill Genesis (NHG) (202214581)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202214581

Notting Hill Genesis (NHG)

13 September 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:
    1. response to the resident’s concerns about:
      1. rehousing;
      2. repairs and pest issues in the property;
      3. decants;
    2. complaints handling.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant at the property of the landlord. The landlord is a registered provider of social housing. The property is a one–bedroom flat. The resident resides in the property with her two children. The resident has advised that she is affected by mobility issues and other health conditions. She has also advised that her children have disabilities. The landlord was aware of these vulnerabilities.
  2. Throughout the period of the complaint, the resident has been represented by her legal representative and personal representative. Unless it is otherwise necessary to distinguish between them, all communications and actions have been noted as coming from the resident.
  3. In or around 2021, the resident reported that her kitchen and bathroom were in a state of disrepair. She also reported issues with pests in the property. It is evident that the landlord’s surveyor assessed the property around this time and concluded that the kitchen needed renewal and that further inspections were needed to assess the pest concerns.
  4. In or around July 2022, the resident began private prosecution proceedings under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 in relation to the disrepair issues and concerns about overcrowding. It is evident that numerous court hearings took place throughout the course of these proceedings.
  5. As part of the attempts between the parties to resolve the issue, the landlord sought to decant the resident to a hotel for 10 working days in December 2022 in order for it to complete repair works and pest treatments. The landlord arranged for a hotel; however, the resident declined due to the hotel room not being a sufficient size for her needs.
  6. The parties discussed the need for a larger hotel room, which the landlord arranged for January 2023. The resident did not proceed with this as she remained unhappy with the hotel arrangements. The landlord subsequently offered the resident a two-bedroom temporary property; however, the resident also declined this as she did not consider it was suitable for her needs.
  7. Throughout this period, the resident continued to express concerns that her property was overcrowded. She also expressed concerns that she had only been awarded Band-B priority for a new property, as she considered that she should be Band-A. It is evident that the landlord provided advice about appealing the banding decision to its lettings panel. The landlord has also advised that it used its discretion and offered the resident three direct let properties in April and May 2023. However, the resident declined these offers.
  8. The resident subsequently advised that she would only accept a four-bedroom property, as she wanted a bedroom for her, for each of her children, and a spare room for any potential overnight carers. The landlord offered a four-bedroom ground–floor property in July 2023; however, the resident declined this due to it having steps at the front. The landlord noted its position that it considered this property suitable given that the resident’s present property also had steps at the front. It is not evident that any medical evidence was provided which addressed issues around steps.
  9. The landlord continued to pursue access and decant arrangements for works through to January 2024 but was unsuccessful. Around this time, the resident withdrew the legal proceedings. It is evident that all of the above events were brought to the attention of the court as part of the proceedings.
  10. The resident withdrew her legal proceedings in or around January 2024. Throughout the period of the complaint, the resident had referred to the concerns she had raised as “formal complaints.” It is not evident, however, that the landlord acknowledged these as such.
  11. Following a communication from this service, the landlord proceeded to provide a stage one response on 11 March 2024. The response noted the history of the issues and advised that the landlord remained committed to finding a suitable decant in order to complete the repairs. It also remained committed to finding a suitable property to offer as a direct let.
  12. The resident requested an escalation of her complaint on 12 April 2024; however, the landlord did not acknowledge this until further intervention from this service. It subsequently provided a stage two response on 7 June 2024, in which it repeated its commitment to working with the resident to resolve the issues. It also acknowledged that its response had been delayed and offered £100 in recognition of any distress and inconvenience.
  13. The resident has advised this service that she remains in the same property and that no works have been completed.

Jurisdiction

  1. What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by 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.
  2. Paragraph 42(e) of the Scheme notes as follows:

42. The Ombudsman may not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion:

e) concern matters where a complainant has or had the opportunity to raise the subject matter of the complaint as part of legal proceedings.

  1. It is not disputed that the resident was involved in legal proceedings with the landlord relating to the subject matter of the complaint. A large proportion of the resident’s communications were brought to the court’s attention, and the resident’s concerns relating to the overcrowding, repairs, and decants were included in the documents submitted to the court. Similarly, the landlord also brought the steps it had taken to attempt to resolve the issues to the court’s attention.
  2. While these proceedings were ended without a final judgement, the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction under paragraph 42(e) of the Scheme is not impacted by the prospects of success of any court action or whether a judgement was made. Given that the resident both had the opportunity to raise these concerns as part of the legal proceedings and indeed did raise them, the Ombudsman is unable to subsequently investigate these matters.
  3. After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42(e) of the Scheme, the complaints about the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about rehousing, repairs and pest issues in the property, and decants are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
  4. Given that the issues that the resident has complained about are yet to be resolved, a recommendation has been made below with the aim of restarting communication between the parties to work towards a resolution.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. Throughout the period of the complaint, the resident raised concerns about her Subject Access Requests and the information the landlord subsequently provided. It is evident from her communications that the resident understands that the Information Commissioner’s Office is the appropriate body to refer any such concerns to.
  2. Similarly, the resident expressed concerns with the legal procedural actions taken by both her own legal representative and the landlord’s legal representatives. The resident may be able to refer such concerns to the Legal Ombudsman or otherwise seek legal advice on this matter.  

Policies and procedures

  1. The landlord operates a two stage complaints procedure. The landlord’s complaints policy notes that it will not respond to a complaint where the complaint relates to an ongoing legal matter. In such circumstances, the landlord’s legal caseworker will decide how best to respond. The policy also notes that its stage two response should be provided within 20 working days of a stage one response.

Complaints handling

  1. It is not disputed that legal proceedings were ongoing when the resident noted her concerns were to be treated as formal complaints. As noted above, the landlord’s policy notes that complaints in such circumstances are outside of the scope of its complaints procedure. This approach also aligns with this service’s Complaints Handling Code.
  2. However, in such circumstances, the landlord’s policy notes that it should be made clear to the resident that the complaint will not be responded to under the complaints procedure. While the landlord and its legal representatives remained in continuous contact with the resident about the issues, it is not evident that this was explicitly explained to the resident. This would have left her confused as to why it had not provided a formal complaint response.
  3. Following the withdrawal of the legal proceedings and following this service’s intervention, the landlord inappropriately provided its stage one response on 11 March 2024. The resident then requested an escalation on 12 April 2024. The landlord should have provided its stage two response within 20 working days; however, it did not provide this until 7 June 2024, some 38 working days later. It did not provide any interim communication to explain the delay, and it took the intervention of this service for it to provide its stage two response.
  4. This delay would have been distressing for the resident and caused her to expend time and effort chasing the response with the help of this service. The landlord appropriately acknowledged this delay in its stage two response and apologised for the distress and inconvenience it had caused. It also offered £100 compensation. This service’s remedies guidance notes that offers of compensation from £100 are appropriate where there was a failure which adversely affected the resident but had no permanent impact. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord’s offer of compensation along with its apology was proportionate to the impact caused by its delayed stage two response and earlier failure to explain its position on a complaint while legal proceedings were ongoing. A finding of reasonable redress has therefore been made for this element of the complaint.

Determination (decision)

  1. As noted above, in accordance with paragraph 42(e) of the Scheme, the complaints about the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about rehousing, repairs and pest issues in the property, and decants are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Scheme, and in the Ombudsman’s opinion, there was reasonable redress offered by the landlord for its service failure in respect of its complaints handling.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should contact the resident (or, if applicable, her representative) and include the following:
    1. Reiterate its request for information about any reasonable adjustments and property requirements. This may include advice around obtaining an occupational therapist’s report to understand the resident’s needs.
    2. Reiterate its offer to find a suitable direct let based on any reasonable requirements.
    3. Reiterate its offer to arrange for a decant to complete any outstanding repair works and pest treatments.
    4. Reiterate its offer of £100 compensation relating to its complaints handling, if this is yet to be accepted.