Notting Hill Genesis (NHG) (202214652)
REPORT
COMPLAINT 202214652
Notting Hill Genesis (NHG)
28 February 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 relates to:
- The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about:
- The garden boundary.
- Its handling of repairs, and her request for alternative housing and payments.
- The landlord’s handling of the complaint.
- The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about:
Background
- The resident’s tenancy at the property began on 8 June 2022. The property is a ground floor flat. She moved to a different property around November 2022.
- The landlord’s records detail the events that occurred between June and August 2022. In summary:
- On 12 June, a part of the ceiling plaster in one of the bedrooms came down. Another bedroom had cracks, and the glass to a window had shattered.
- On 14 June, the landlord agreed to pay the resident £50 per day to stay with family and friends. It raised work to address her concerns.
- On 20 June, she reported that a kitchen unit had fallen off the wall. It repaired this on 12 July.
- Between 27 June and 5 July, operatives removed the ceilings in both bedrooms, installed insulation, plastered and decorated the ceilings.
- On 1 July, it raised a repair for the kitchen floor which she said was a trip hazard.
- On 12 July, it inspected the ceiling works. It found that the work was poor, and it needed to redo this. It arranged a further inspection for 14 July.
- It booked an appointment for the window for 13 July but did not gain access.
- On 1 August, she reported that there were no sockets in the bedrooms and no light fitting due to the works.
- On 4 August, there were conversations about the radiators and pipework. The resident felt the pipes should run under the floor like in other rooms as the pipes would be a hazard. The landlord offered to box in pipes in the child’s bedroom. The resident said she was still waiting for the landlord to pay the £50 per day, replace her furniture, and respond to her rehousing request.
- On 9 August, the resident chased a response. The landlord had agreed to offer accommodation in a 2-bedroom property and send a list of suitable properties. It also confirmed that she could decide to accept the alternative property permanently. It provided a list of some properties.
- On 15 August, operatives reported that the resident would not allow them to continue works. She wanted it to replace the whole kitchen floor. She was also unaware of some other work they were due to complete. She asked it to contact her to agree the schedule of works before confirming a start date.
- On the same day, the landlord contacted the resident to confirm that it had agreed the works following site visits. It confirmed it would level the floor in the kitchen where the fridge space was, check the wall units and complete minor repointing to an external wall. It asked her to confirm whether works could proceed on 18 and 19 August. It completed major work to the ceilings and plastering as of 24 August. Other repairs to the window, kitchen, radiators and socket covers and light fittings were not at this stage.
- On 18 August 2022, the resident said she was using the “disrepair protocol”. She confirmed she was seeking compensation for damages and would pursue a formal claim should it not rectify matters. She asked the landlord to set out a schedule of works. She wanted someone independent to inspect and provide a report. The landlord handled this under its formal complaints process.
- The resident’s complaint communication set out her concerns. In summary, she said:
- There were ongoing repair issues. She disputed that the ceilings and plastering throughout the property were suitable. She was concerned that the radiator pipework would not be within the floor but along the walls which she felt was a hazard. She wanted it to level the kitchen floor.
- She was not able to live in the property from 12 June 2022 as it was uninhabitable, and it was inconvenient to stay with friends and family. This significantly impacted her and her daughter.
- She wanted compensation for damage to her sofa, her microwave, paintwork, loss of earnings, energy charges, the impact on her households’ mental health, inconvenience caused by needing to travel to the property to supervise work, loss of time, the rent charges, petrol costs, and loss of food due to the cupboard collapse.
- She raised concerns about the garden boundary fence during the viewing. It said it would investigate as it may not have been in the correct place. She did not feel it had investigated the matter properly.
- Her housing officer’s communication was slow and did not answer her concerns. She was concerned about communication from a staff member who was a subject of her complaint, and their behaviour on a phone call.
- There were delays in paying the subsistence payments which caused financial difficulties. She continued to ask it to make the remaining agreed payments throughout the complaint.
- After it agreed to rehouse her in August 2022, there were delays and she needed to chase information about suitable properties.
- It had not followed the pre–action disrepair protocol. She maintained that she wanted it to instruct an independent surveyor to agree the work.
- She disputed that she had denied access to the property as it had alleged. It did not effectively communicate about the repairs and sent contractors to an empty property. She added that contractors visited to reinstate the radiators but were only able to complete 2 radiators due to a lack of time booked for the work. She reported that they said they could run the pipework under the floor with the landlord’s consent and decorators were unable to complete their work due to the outstanding repairs to the radiators, light fittings, and sockets. She alleged that operatives were in the property on the dates it said she had not allowed access (18 and 19 August 2022).
- She challenged that the property was habitable after 24 August 2022 as it had not completed work for the radiators, light fittings, window, and socket covers. She did not live in the property and asked it to make further subsistence payments until November 2022.
- It told her about arrears of £250 on the rent account in February 2023, after she moved. She did not feel she should have to pay this and asked that it waive the arrears.
- The landlord’s responses to the resident on 21 October 2022, 6 April 2023, and 16 August 2023 set out the following:
- It apologised for the series of issues she experienced and the impact of this. It also found that its communication was not clear. It recognised that the property was not ready to let.
- It provided feedback on her case to its teams. It learnt that it needed to complete additional checks when letting its properties to ensure this did not happen again. It also needed to review how it agreed and communicated about decants and pay subsistence payments more regularly.
- In relation to her concerns about the garden, it recognised that she said that the fence looked out of place during her viewing. When she signed the tenancy, it committed to investigating whether the fence was incorrect and whether her garden should be larger. It found that it owned the land, and documents did not dictate how it should divide the garden. The fence, while new, had been in position for around 18 years so it would not move this. It apologised if it had not communicated this clearly.
- In relation to the repairs, it set out what happened at various stages. It apologised that the initial plastering repairs were to a poor standard and confirmed that it completed these as of 24 August 2022. It believed the property was habitable after this as the extensive works were complete. It could complete the remaining works while she was at the property. It explained that it did not believe the remaining works, including a lack of heating in some rooms, made the property uninhabitable in summer months. It did not agree that it should pay subsistence payments until the day she moved into the new property.
- Its contractors had difficulty accessing to the property and there were occasions when she did not agree to works which meant they did not continue. It attempted to repair the window on 15 July and 28 August 2022 but had no access. It had agreed work to point brickwork, replace an air brick, build a base for the fridge to counter the sloping floor, remove and refix a wall unit, renew the skirting boards, and box the boiler pipework. It did not complete this as she denied access.
- It needed to give 24 hours notice in line with its policies and had done so. It also asked her to provide access several times and she did not respond to some requests. It appreciated the stressful circumstances, and that she needed to deal with more than she should have.
- It noted her request that it drew up a schedule of works and appointed an independent surveyor if she did not agree. It said this was in its best interest but was not a requirement of its policy. It maintained that it did not fit pipes under floors unless required but had offered to box in the pipes.
- It confirmed that it agreed to pay £50 per day while the property was not habitable. It had paid the £2,400 subsistence payment from 12 June 2022 to 29 July 2022. It agreed to pay the further £1,300 for the period between 30 July 2022 and 24 August 2022. It believed that its offer of £50 per day was generous, but if her expenses exceeded £3,700 it would reconsider this. It apologised for the delay in providing the subsistence payments and offered compensation for the inconvenience.
- It recognised a difference in what had occurred in terms of access and the completion of works. It agreed to pay £600 as a gesture of goodwill for the 10-day period it would have taken to complete the remaining works. This was for the time between 25 August 2022 and 4 September 2022.
- In relation to her concerns about communication from its staff, its communication from her housing officer was delayed and did not address all of her concerns. It apologised that her questions about the subsistence payments were unanswered. It spoke to the other staff member about their use of the phrase “yep, yep, yep”. They did not remember this but apologised for any distress caused and said they meant no disrespect. It said that she could copy another staff member into any future correspondence to avoid miscommunication.
- In relation to her concerns about the delay in offering alternative accommodation, it said that it made a Band A direct offer to a like for like property on 21 October 2022. On 26 September 2022, it told her that a property was becoming available. There was an issue with the empty property which meant it cancelled a viewing last minute. Its records confirmed that the resident viewed and accepted the property in November 2022. It recognised there were delays in her moving to a new property.
- It did not receive her escalation email on 7 November 2022 setting out her dissatisfaction, but it admitted there was poor communication and apologised that it did not respond to her. It met with her on 10 March 2023. In relation to her concern that she had initiated the pre-action protocol for disrepair claims, it said that she referenced the disrepair protocol but did not provide a claim. It said it would consider this if she provided a copy.
- It agreed to pay for the full cost of the microwave which was damaged when the kitchen unit fell. It did not find damage to her sofa but offered to pay toward a professional clean. It did not have evidence of her energy costs but said it would consider additional costs beyond the average amount. It previously offered a decoration voucher and agreed to pay £40 toward the cost of decorating in the new property.
- She was responsible for the rent at the property. But it would write off the remaining arrears as a gesture of goodwill given the difficulties she experienced. It did not pay this initially as she did not agree with the compensation offer on 6 April 2023. It paused arrears communication.
- It did not pay compensation for loss of earnings in line with its compensation policy. It would make the remaining subsistence payment of £1,300. It offered £2,490 as compensation and goodwill gestures. This was:
- £440 as goodwill towards the costs of replacing the microwave, cleaning the sofa, and replacing food in the cupboards. It also said that she could raise an insurance claim via her own, or its insurer.
- £150 for its complaint handling delays at stage 1 and stage 2.
- £250 for poor void preparation.
- £250 for poor communication about repairs and the payments.
- £250 for the stress and inconvenience caused by the delayed payments.
- £550 for the stress and inconvenience caused during the time she was out of her home and by the delay in moving.
- £600 for the 10-day period between 25 August and 5 September 2022.
- The landlord’s records show it made the further subsistence payment of £1,300 on 23 August 2023. It did not pay the other amounts as the resident did not agree. She referred the complaint to us to investigate.
Assessment and findings
Scope of investigation
- The resident said the situation affected her and her family’s mental and physical health. She does not feel the landlord’s offer of compensation reflects the impact. We do not doubt her comments but we cannot determine liability for impacts on health and wellbeing or award damages. This is better suited to be dealt with through the courts as a personal injury claim. We have considered the general distress and inconvenience caused.
Policies and procedures
- The tenancy agreement confirms that the landlord is responsible for repairs to the structure of the property, including internal walls and ceilings, major plastering, pipework, and installations for the supply of water and heating. The resident is responsible for allowing access with reasonable notice, internal decorations, and paying rent charges.
- The landlord’s repair policy states that it would make safe emergency repairs (including structural safety issues) within 24 hours. It completes standard repairs within 20 working days. It would communicate with residents about the timeframe for completing major works or replacements.
- The landlord had a 2 stage formal complaints process. It would respond at stage 1 within 10 working days and stage 2 within 20 working days. If the landlord needs more time, it would contact the resident and provide an action plan and timescale for response.
Garden boundary
- The resident said the landlord told her that the main garden formed part of the neighbour’s tenancy. She did not feel it investigated this properly. Her tenancy agreement says there was no garden included. The void documents show there was an external space that she had sole access to.
- The landlord acted reasonably by confirming that it would investigate her concerns about the position of the boundary fence. There is no evidence to suggest that it promised that the boundary would change following its investigation. It acted reasonably by confirming that it owned the land, and as the fence had been in place for a considerable time, it would not move this. It acted fairly by apologising if this was not made clear to her sooner.
- As the landlord owned the land in its entirety, it could decide how to divide the garden for each flat within the building. Its decision not to change the garden boundary was reasonable. It would not be reasonable to change the layout of an existing garden which had been in place for a considerable period. This would not be fair to the neighbour, who would have also accepted the garden as it was. It did not need to move the fence and provide a larger garden area at the resident’s request but acted reasonably by investigating the matter. We have found no maladministration in the landlord’s response to this aspect of the complaint.
Repairs and the resident’s request for alternative housing and payments
- The landlord has recognised that its failings significantly inconvenienced the resident. It offered a combined payment of £2,340 for this aspect of the complaint. The offer is in line with our remedies guidance. Amounts over £1,000 can be suitable where the circumstances for severe maladministration apply. This includes when there is a significant long-term impact on a resident.
- The landlord has detailed the works completed during the “void” period. It did not find faults with the ceilings, wall plaster, kitchen units, or window, at the time. It acted reasonably by apologising that there were several repair issues when the resident moved in. It learnt it needed to complete additional checks to prevent similar circumstances in future which was reasonable.
- It acted reasonably by acknowledging that there were failures in communication, including by its staff regarding the repairs and subsistence payments. It took appropriate steps to investigate the resident’s concerns about a staff member’s behaviour by interviewing them and relaying their apology. It also tried to prevent ongoing miscommunication by confirming that she could copy another staff member into emails moving forward. Nevertheless, it should have arranged this when she initially raised concern about the staff member in August 2022.
- The resident’s ongoing concerns relate to the compensation and payments. As such, we have focused on these aspects in the assessment below. She maintains that the landlord should pay the subsistence payments, alongside other costs, until it rehoused her on 28 November 2022. We have dealt with each aspect of the complaint in turn below.
Dispute about access, works, and whether the property was habitable.
- The landlord accepted that the property was “uninhabitable” from 12 June 2022 due to the ceiling plaster work. The nature of the works meant that the resident could not remain in the property. There were delays due to the quality of the work completed by its contractors in June and July 2022. There is no dispute that it completed the work to remedy this on 24 August 2022.
- At the time of her communication on 18 August 2022, the major works were in progress. However, the resident disputed that the ceilings and plastering in other parts of the property were suitable. She was also concerned about proposed work to the radiator pipework and kitchen floor, and other repairs.
- The ceiling plaster had fallen shortly after she moved in, and the initial work to remedy this failed. It is understandable that the resident wanted an independent surveyor to check the work and provide a report on this basis. The landlord should have confirmed its position from the outset and acted in line with the pre-action protocol for disrepair claims. It did not recognise her letter as an intention to claim. We have addressed this in the complaint handling section below.
- However, it acted act reasonably to progress repairs by explaining its position to her. It checked the plastering and ceilings and believed these were safe. It was reasonable for it to rely on the opinions of its qualified staff when saying this. It explained that it would not install radiator pipework below the floor at her request. While it was possible, it did not need to do so. It is generally reasonable for heating pipework to run along a wall. It offered to box the pipes in a bedroom due to her concerns about safety, which was appropriate.
- The evidence suggests that the resident wanted the kitchen floor levelled rather than the landlord’s proposed solution to build a plinth for the fridge. Its suggestion was reasonable. There is no evidence to suggest that it found that it needed to level the entire floor, or that it was otherwise unsafe.
- The resident maintained that the property was uninhabitable from 24 August 2022. This was due to a lack of radiators in some rooms, the cracked window, a lack of light fitting, unsecured socket covers and no light fitting. It is not our role to determine whether the property was habitable. We will instead consider how the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns.
- The landlord acted reasonably by explaining why it initially felt the resident could not remain in the property – due to the major works. It fairly considered her concerns in its responses and concluded that the remaining repairs could be done while she was living in the property. It also said it would complete works as soon as possible if the resident confirmed dates for access. This demonstrates a willingness to support the resident to return to her home in the first instance. It specified that the remaining works did not make the property uninhabitable and acted reasonably by offering to provide temporary heaters in October 2022 due to the dispute about works.
- However, it is evident that there was also a dispute about access and the resident’s “refusal” of access. She raised concerns that the landlord had sent contractors to an empty property. It did not inform her of some appointments or give sufficient notice. She said that contractors were in the property or had completed some work during alleged days of no access.
- The resident needed to travel to the property to allow access for work. It was not reasonable for the landlord to expect her to provide access for contractors if she was living elsewhere. It could have prevented a lack of access, and inconvenience caused to her (including any related time off work), by obtaining the keys. It recognised that this contributed to delays within its internal records, but did not clearly explain this within its responses.
- As the landlord did not obtain keys, it would have been appropriate for it to have provided additional notice, and a clear plan of what work it would do on each day. This would have allowed the resident to be prepared. It did attempt to provide more than 24 hours notice on some occasions via email and did not dispute that its communication about repairs was poor.
- We do not usually order compensation to reimburse a resident’s loss of earnings or wages while allowing access for repairs but may consider compensation for inconvenience. The landlord acted reasonably by acknowledging that she needed to do more than she should have. It also recognised the discrepancies between its records and what she said happened in its response in April 2023 which was reasonable.
- The landlord recognised delays, and the inconvenience caused in not sourcing and formally offering the resident an alternative property until November 2022. We appreciate the resident’s concerns. However, the impact of the delays between August and November 2022 was mitigated as it deemed that the main property was habitable during this time and there is no evidence to show otherwise. It also maintained it would complete the repairs as soon as possible. It did not have to uphold its offer of a transfer after 24 August 2022. It demonstrated that it was resolution focused by doing so in view of her overall experience.
- The landlord did not specifically acknowledge failings in its handling of the request for an independent survey, or the impact of not obtaining keys for the property in its responses. Despite this, we consider its offers of compensation, alongside the goodwill payment of £600 in view of the discrepancies about access and refusal of work, reasonable. It did not need to pay ongoing subsistence payments while the resident remained away from the property during late August to November 2022.
Damaged belongings
- Landlords are entitled to have insurance policies and are not obliged to consider a claim for damage to possessions outside the insurance process. It is beyond our remit to determine whether the landlord is liable or order it to compensate the resident for the damage she said the repair issues caused to her sofa.
- The landlord acted reasonably by offering £440 toward the cost of replacing the microwave, lost food, and cleaning the sofa. While there is a disagreement as to whether the sofa was damaged, this would be for an insurer to decide. It would have been helpful for it to have provided its insurance information from the outset. This is because the resident believed it was liable for the damage. It included this within its stage 2 response which was reasonable.
Subsistence, rent, and energy
- The landlord offered the resident £50 per day while the property was uninhabitable from 12 June 2022 to 24 August 2022. This was £3,700 over the 74-day period. It paid £2,400 by 28 July 2022 and paid the further £1,300 around 25 August 2023. During this period, the resident said she continued to pay rent directly and that she was seeking to recover the rent and energy charges in her communication on 18 August 2022.
- The landlord had multiple opportunities to make the final payment of £1,300 to the resident. This was not subject to her complaint. In April 2023, it recognised that it should have paid this sooner and offered compensation for inconvenience. It then failed to process the payment until August 2023. It was unreasonable that it took the landlord a year to make the payment for the relevant period. It acted reasonably by learning that it needed to make payments more regularly. But its offer of £250 compensation was not proportionate for the reasons set out below.
- Subsistence payments are usually to cover the cost of food, travel, and other expenses a resident may have while being unable to live in the property. The landlord’s decant policies, and procedures do not refer to “subsistence”. The policies we have seen state that:
- When the move is for a short time, it may offer a “cash incentive” for a resident to stay with friends or relatives.
- It would, generally, pay all reasonable expenses agreed in advance.
- If the tenant makes their own arrangements (and it does not provide temporary accommodation), it will set the rent to zero.
- It would pay utility bills at the main property, whilst completing major works.
- We have not seen that the landlord clearly explained what the subsistence payment was for from the outset. The lack of clarity and the delay in making the payments was likely to have a significant impact on the resident. Its complaint responses indicate the payment was for food and travel expenses while being unable to live in the property. However, it said to us that it did not adjust the rent charge to £0 during the period as payment was more than the weekly rent figure – meaning the payments were also supposed to cover the rent charge.
- In addition, the landlord said that it would consider contributing toward the resident’s energy costs while not being able to live at the property if she provided evidence. This was reasonable in view of its policy to pay for utility costs. However, it told us that the subsistence payments covered any energy standing charges. This contradicts its previous responses.
- Setting the rent to £0 when tenants make their own accommodation arrangements would be to ensure that they are not disadvantaged for paying rent while property was uninhabitable. The landlord did not strictly follow its policy and offered a subsistence payment instead which was more than the total rent amount. The weekly rent for the property was £158.85. The weekly subsistence payment was £350. This left around £191 a week towards other expenses, including ongoing utility bills as set out by the landlord above.
- The landlord said it would consider any expenses exceeding the total of £3,700 due to not being able to live in the property in its stage 1 complaint response. At the time, it was not clear that this was also to account for the rent charges or energy. This meant she lost the opportunity to evidence if £50 per day was not enough to cover her reasonable expenses at the time. If the landlord intended for the payment to cover the ongoing rent and energy charges, it should have explained this at the time. It is evident that the resident did not receive these payments in a timely manner. It did not “reimburse” her for the rent she had paid between 30 June 2022 and 24 August 2022 until August 2023.
- We would not expect the landlord to reimburse the rent paid at this stage as the subsistence payments achieved the same objective. However, it should consider evidence the resident provides about the other expenses she incurred, including any energy statements. If this (alongside any rent payments she made directly between 12 June and 24 August 2022) shows that her expenses exceeded £3,700, it should offer further payment.
- The resident also raised concern about the landlord pursuing her for rent arrears of £250 for the property in February 2023. In its response in April 2023, the landlord said that she was responsible for the rent at the property but that it would write off arrears due to her poor experience. It is unclear when the arrears accrued, or whether this was after 24 August 2022 when it deemed the property habitable. Its offer was reasonable as it did not have to do this.
- Despite agreeing to this, the resident said it had not done so in June 2023. The landlord said that this was because she did not accept its compensation offer from April 2023, but it would complete the write off after it responded at stage 2. It did not mention this at stage 2 which was likely to cause added confusion. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have done what it said it would. While the resident did not accept its overall offer of compensation, she was clearly dissatisfied that it did not process this.
- We have found service failure by the landlord for this aspect of the complaint. The landlord’s overall offer of £2,340 is significant and puts right a number of failings. However, it did not adequately recognise the level of impact caused by the delays and lack of clarity about the subsistence payments. The landlord failed to respond to the resident’s request for a rent reimbursement or provide clarity on its position from the outset or in its responses. She reiterated the financial impact his had on multiple occasions and spent time and trouble chasing the agreed payment.
The landlord’s handling of the complaint
- The resident raised concern that the landlord opened a complaint but did not recognise that she had started the disrepair protocol. When a resident starts the disrepair protocol, it is important that the landlord does not disengage from either its complaints process or the repair. We and the courts look to see that it has tried alternative dispute resolution first. It can handle the matter via its complaints process. But it should clearly confirm how it is handling the communication – whether under its complaints process, the protocol, or both.
- In its stage 2 response on 16 August 2023, the landlord said that it had not received a disrepair protocol. This is of concern given that the letter of 18 August 2022 included relevant information. She mentioned this on several occasions, including on 26 August, 29 September, 10 October, and 7 November 2022. The landlord failed to explain its position to her which caused uncertainty and inconvenience.
- Its records show that it believed she did not follow the correct process. It should have explained why it was not treating her letter in line with the protocol from the outset. Its failure to do so was likely to make her feel ignored and add to her frustration. It is, however, noted that the landlord continued to attempt to resolve the repair issues over the course of the complaint. The letter also included concerns about the garden, her request to move, and contact. These issues were best suited to a complaint as they were not about disrepair.
- The landlord has not disputed that there were delays at stage 1 and stage 2 of its process and offered £150 compensation for the distress caused. The responses were issued outside of its policy timescales. However, at both stages, there is no evidence to show it informed her when she could expect to receive a response, the reason for any delay, or that it provided updates.
- The resident responded directly to the stage 1 response email on 7 November 2022. She needed to pursue this further with the landlord on 11 February 2023. It was reasonable for the landlord to meet with her on 10 March 2023, but this was a month later, adding to the overall delay.
- The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (2022) states that if a landlord does not resolve all or part of the complaint to the resident’s satisfaction at stage 1, it must progress this to stage 2 of its procedure. The landlord issued a stage 1 follow-on response on 6 April 2023, 5 months following the email on 7 November 2022. It explained it had not received her communication from 7 November 2022 and acted reasonably by apologising for its poor communication. However, by sending a stage 1 follow-on response, it included an unnamed stage which was not in line with the complaints policy or the Code. This unreasonably extended the overall time of the complaint.
- The landlord did not mention its previous monetary offers in its stage 2 complaint response. This included a payment of £40 toward decoration, and its offer to write off the remaining arrears on the resident’s rent account due to her poor experience. This was likely to cause confusion as to whether it would pay these. In addition, it had the opportunity to more fully address the reasons why a staff member continued to communicate with her despite being the subject of the complaint. This was likely to cause frustration.
- Overall, the landlord’s offer of £150 compensation was disproportionately low given the extended period of the complaint between August 2022 and August 2023. It did not provide clear communication about its complaints process, did not explain the reasons for any delay, and did not provide regular updates. This added to the overall inconvenience the resident experienced. We have found service failure by the landlord and have made orders below.
Determination
- In line with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s concerns about the garden boundary.
- In line with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its response to the resident’s concerns about its handling of repairs, and her request for alternative housing and payments.
- In line with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the complaint.
Orders
- Within 4 weeks, the landlord is to:
- Write to the resident to apologise for the failings identified, including its handling of her pre-action disrepair letter.
- Pay the resident £2,980 compensation comprised of:
- £2,490 as previously offered (compensation and goodwill gestures) in its stage 2 complaint response.
- £40 toward decoration (as previously offered in April 2023).
- An additional £250 compensation for the inconvenience caused by the delays and lack of clarity around subsistence payments and rent charges.
- An additional £200 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused, and time and trouble spent due to its poor complaint handling.
- If it has not yet written off the arrears (as agreed on 6 April 2023) on the resident’s former rent account, it should arrange to make this payment either to her former or current rent account.
- The landlord is to provide evidence of compliance within the above timescale.
Recommendations
- We recommend that the landlord considers evidence the resident provides about the expenses she incurred between 12 June 2022 and 24 August 2022, including any energy statements. If this (alongside any rent she paid directly) shows her expenses exceeded £3,700, it should consider making a further payment.
- We recommend that the landlord includes information about subsistence payments and its calculations in its decant policies and processes.
- It should confirm its intentions within 4 weeks.