Notting Hill Genesis (NHG) (202217622)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202217622

Notting Hill Genesis (NHG)

24 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

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about items left in the communal hallway.
2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

3. The resident has an assured tenancy with the landlord which began on 19 December 2005. The property is a 2-bedroom maisonette on the third floor.
4. The resident said she had reported her concerns about a neighbour leaving items in the communal hallway for many years. She said the landlord would serve tort notices and attend to remove the items when the notice expired. The neighbour would take the items back inside and return the items to the communal hallway when the landlord had left. The cycle would then start again from the beginning. On 16 June 2022 the resident informed the landlord that she would like to make a complaint about this because she felt nothing had changed despite the landlord serving several tort notices. The resident said she was concerned about health and safety because the items were causing a fire hazard and trip hazard.
5. On 4 August 2022 the resident complained again that she felt the landlord was not doing enough to address the issues around items left in the communal hallway. She again referred to her concerns about this being a health and safety issue and a trip hazard. The landlord sent a stage 1 response on 15 August 2022 in which it said:
   1. It was going to provide additional storage for the neighbour, by way of a shed, which it hoped would resolve the issue.
6. On 23 September 2022 the resident informed the landlord that the issues were ongoing. She said she did not feel her complaint had been full answered and she would like to refer her complaint to the Ombudsman.
7. On 27 February 2023, following contact from the resident, we wrote to the landlord and asked it to either, consider the resident’s complaint under its complaint procedure or provide a copy of its response to the resident, if this had already been sent.
8. On 22 March 2023 the landlord sent another stage 1 response, in which it said:
   1. It accepted the resident had reported items being stored in the communal hallway on many occasions. It had cleared items in the past but the neighbour continued to store items in this area. It agreed that residents should not be storing items in the communal hallway.
   2. It agreed to conduct unannounced visits to investigate and if it found any items, it would serve a notice to have the items removed by the neighbour within 7 days. If the owners did not remove the items after 7 days, it would arrange for removal and disposal.
   3. It said it had been building a case with a log of occurrences when the neighbour left items in the communal hallway for a legal referral. However, due to a backlog with the legal team, it had not been able to implement any legal notices. The landlord was therefore now proposing to issue notices and dispose of items.
   4. It apologised for the delay in responding to the resident’s complaint and offered £50 compensation in recognition.
9. On 20 April 2023 the resident informed the landlord that she remained dissatisfied and wanted to escalate her complaint to stage 2. She said that despite the landlord issuing several tort notices, nothing had changed. She said her neighbour continued to store items in the communal hallway which was a health and safety issue. The resident said she was also not happy with the amount of compensation the landlord had offered her due to the number of emails, calls, writing, and having to seek advice on this matter.
10. On 16 June 2023 the landlord contacted the resident to agree an extension to the deadline for its stage 2 response to 13 July 2023. The landlord said this would allow it to complete its investigation and to monitor a number of actions.
11. On 13 July 2023 the landlord sent its stage 2 response, in which it said:
    1. The first report it had received from the resident about her neighbour leaving items in the communal areas was on 9 April 2021.
    2. It identified a number of service failures which included:
       1. It had not completed a timely and effective response to the resident’s complaint regarding items stored in the communal areas. It had not adequately addressed or resolved the issue in a timely manner.
       2. The shed, which it had provided to the neighbour in August 2022, had not resolved the issue and the neighbour continued to leave items in the communal hallway.
       3. It had been unable to find any records on what actions it had taken between 24 October 2022 and 14 February 2023. 
       4. It had made a referral to its legal team in October 2022 and February 2023. It did not have any information regarding specific action taken in response to this referral.
       5. It had failed to fulfil agreed actions from June 2023, which included weekly inspections by the landlord’s estate team to ensure the communal area was clear from items.
    3. It apologised for the distress and inconvenience caused and offered £450 in compensation which it broke down as follows:
       1. £50 – lack of timely and effective response to the initial complaint
       2. £100 – failure to fulfil agreed actions from June 2023
       3. £50 – failure to follow policy and procedures
       4. £250 – in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused
12. In communication with the Ombudsman, the resident said she was frustrated because she had been reporting the same issues to the landlord for many years. The landlord would take some remedial action but then things would revert back to how they were before. She said she was unable to bring visitors back to her flat because of the mess and the smell in the communal hallway. She was also concerned because it was a trip hazard and a fire hazard. As an outcome she would like the landlord to ensure that the communal areas are kept clear to ensure the safety of herself and others.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

13. The Ombudsman understands there is a long history of reports by the resident about items left in the communal area. We can see that the resident made a formal complaint about these issues in June 2022 and the landlord provided a stage 1 response on 15 August 2022. On 23 September 2022 the resident informed the landlord that she remained dissatisfied with the complaint response, and she would be contacting the Ombudsman for assistance.
14. Although this was a clear expression of dissatisfaction, the landlord did not recognise this as a complaint and so did not escalate the process from stage 1 to stage 2. This meant that the resident’s further correspondence and reports of poor service did not receive a formal response until the Ombudsman encouraged it to do so in February 2023.
15. In the interest of fairness, the Ombudsman has therefore made the decision to take the resident’s earlier complaint into account, and to recognise this as the first stage in the process that was later exhausted in July 2023. This is because the landlord did not give the resident the opportunity to proceed with her initial complaint and subsequently exhaust the process at an earlier time. This investigation will consider the events that took place up to 12 months prior to the complaint in June 2022 and will seek to determine whether the landlord handled matters in accordance with its obligations and what was fair and reasonable in the circumstances.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about items left in the communal hallway

16. The resident reported she was affected by a neighbour leaving items in the communal hallway for many years. This included, tools, shoes, boxes, children’s bikes and scooters, carpets, and black bin bags. She explained that children’s bikes and scooters were often left behind the front door, hindering the resident when entering the building and causing a trip hazard because she had to step over items to get to her flat. She was concerned because this was a health and safety issue because it was an access route for her flat. She has informed us that the landlord had served multiple tort notices, and provided additional storage for the neighbour, which she said had not made any difference and the neighbour continued to leave items in the communal area. She also said that the landlord had informed her on 2 occasions that it would take legal action against the neighbour, but then changed its mind, which left the resident feeling frustrated.
17. The landlord’s communal area policy says that it operates a zero-tolerance approach to storage of items in communal areas. The landlord may remove any items which residents leave in communal areas. It also states that all paths and defined access routes must be kept clear of obstructions. This is consistent with the landlord’s estate management policy and the resident’s handbook.
18. Where items are left in a communal area the landlord’s disposal of goods procedure says that it will deliver a letter and tort notice, under the Torts (interference with goods) Act 1977, to the owner of the items, or to all residents, if the owner is not known. It will also display the notice on the items or the wall or notice board so that it is clearly visible to all residents. Where there is no immediate health and safety threat, the landlord will allow 14 days for the owner to remove the items. If the owner does not remove the items, the landlord will arrange removal and disposal in line with its policy.
19. It is worth noting here that a tort notice is only valid for the period stated and from the date of the notice. It is also only valid for the items it is issued for. If, when the landlord returns to remove items, it finds that other items have been added since the tort notice was issued, it will need to issue new tort notices for the additional items and start the process again.
20. On 31 August 2021 the records indicate that the landlord completed a fire risk assessment of the building. It noted there were trip hazards within the common escape routes, which included the stairs and hallway. The trip hazards identified were a pushchair, boxes of shoes, bikes, paints, bags, scooters, plastics, and cardboard. Due to lack of adequate records, we are unable to establish what action the landlord took at this point and whether this was reasonable.
21. In December 2021 the resident informed the landlord that the neighbour was still leaving items in the communal hallway. The landlord informed the resident that it would speak to the neighbour.
22. In February 2022 the resident contacted the landlord for an update as the situation had not improved. The landlord visited the building on 3 February 2022 and issued tort notices on all the items it found in the communal hallway, giving the owner 14 days to remove. The items were not moved within the 14 days so the landlord arranged to have the items removed. This was appropriate and consistent with the landlord’s policy.
23. The contractors attended on 23 February 2022 when the neighbour moved the items into their property. However, the neighbour placed the items back in the hallway after the contractors had left.
24. On 16 June 2022 the resident informed the landlord that she would like to make a complaint because nothing had changed. She said she was concerned that the items left in the communal hallway may cause a trip hazard. The landlord responded on the same date and explained that it had tried to resolve the issues but its efforts had been unsuccessful. It informed the resident that it had spoken to the neighbour and warned that if they continued to leave items in the communal hallway the landlord would consider legal action. It said it had a meeting with the neighbour the following week and it would speak to the neighbour again about this issue.
25. On 17 June 2022 the landlord spoke to the neighbour and explained again that they should not be leaving items in the communal hallway. The landlord asked about storage and offered to provide the neighbour with a shed for their use. Further to this, following a further discussion with the neighbour, the landlord agreed to assist the neighbour to obtain more storage for inside the property. This was reasonable and demonstrated the landlord was looking at other practical options to resolve the issue for all parties.
26. In September 2022 the resident informed the landlord that the neighbour was not using the storage provided and still leaving items in the communal hallway. The landlord responded on 7 October 2022 and informed the resident that it had spoken to the neighbour and made efforts to help, which had not worked. It said it needed to take legal action to enforce the neighbour’s tenancy conditions and it would keep the resident updated.
27. On 24 October 2022 the records indicate that the landlord opened a fire safety case and sent a letter to the neighbour. The landlord has not provided the Ombudsman with a copy of its fire safety inspection report or the letter sent to the neighbour. It has also not provided a copy of its fire safety policy. We are therefore unable to assess whether the landlord’s actions were appropriate or not. This is a record keeping failure by the landlord.
28. We can see the resident contacted the landlord for updates on 20 January 2023, 25 January 2023, and 16 February 2023. On 14 February 2023 the records indicate the landlord made a referral to its legal team. It updated the resident on 16 February 2023 to inform her it was progressing with the legal referral. In its stage 1 complaint response on 22 March 2023 the landlord informed the resident that it had not been able to implement legal action due to a backlog of work for its legal team. It said it would arrange unannounced visits and serve a notice to have the items removed by the neighbour within 7 days. If the neighbour did not remove the items, the landlord would arrange removal and disposal.
29. The landlord’s disposal of goods procedure states where there is a recurring problem with a resident continuing to leave items in communal areas, the landlord may need to explore other options to enforce the zero-tolerance policy. It refers to legal action it can take for breach of tenancy, which includes an injunction order to prevent residents leaving items in communal areas. In such circumstances the landlord should obtain advice from its legal caseworker. It was therefore appropriate that the landlord referred the case to its legal team for consideration.
30. The landlord has not provided the Ombudsman with a copy of the legal referral from February 2023 or evidence of how it came to its decision not to progress with legal action against the neighbour. In its complaint response the landlord said it could not proceed with legal action due to a backlog of work. The Ombudsman understands that landlords may have to prioritise cases, where there has been a breach of tenancy, based on the type of tenancy breach, risk to others and available resources.
31. In such circumstances, the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to consider what it could do to mitigate the impact upon the resident in the meantime. We would also expect the landlord to provide a timescale on when it might be in a position to proceed with its planned action. In this case, the landlord took the decision to serve another tort notice to have the items removed. Which in the circumstances was reasonable. However, it was not reasonable that it did not provide the resident with a timescale when it might be able to proceed or that it took the landlord almost 6 months to update the resident about this decision.
32. It would appear the landlord served another tort notice around April 2023 because the resident contacted the landlord on 19 April 2023 requesting an update on this. There is no evidence to show what happened following service of this notice or what action the landlord took. This was another record keeping failure by the landlord.
33. The resident escalated her complaint on 20 April 2023 because there had been no improvement. On 16 June 2023 the landlord contacted the resident about her complaint and explained that it would like to extend the deadline for its stage 2 response to allow it time to investigate and monitor the following actions which the landlord said it would complete:
    1. place a notice in the communal area advising all residents not to leave items in the communal area and that it would remove any such items
    2. send a letter to all residents advising not to leave items in the communal area and that it would remove any items left immediately
    3. arrange weekly inspections for the next 4 weeks to ensure the communal area was clear and free from items, it would remove any items found immediately
34. The records show that the landlord placed the tort notice in the communal area and delivered letters to each property on 6 July 2023. There is no evidence that the landlord completed any inspections during this time. This was a failure by the landlord because it had not completed actions it had agreed to do.
35. It is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail. If we investigate a complaint, we will ask for the landlord’s records. If there is disputed evidence and no audit trail, we may not be able to conclude that an action took place or that the landlord followed its own policies and procedures. The landlord’s record-keeping has impacted the Ombudsman’s ability to establish whether there was anything further that the landlord did to address the issue, as highlighted at various points throughout this report. This was a failure by the landlord and contributed to the other failures identified in this report.
36. In summary, the landlord:
    1. failed to create and maintain adequate records of its fire safety inspection from August 2021 and October 2022 and the actions taken thereafter
    2. failed to create and maintain adequate records to demonstrate what actions it had taken following service of the tort notice in April 2023
    3. failed to conduct weekly inspections as agreed in June 2023
    4. failed to manage communications with the resident about the outcome of the legal referral, and other aspects of the case, which resulted in the resident having to chase the landlord for updates on several occasions
    5. raised the resident’s expectations by not following through on what it told the resident it would do
37. The Ombudsman has determined that these failures amount to maladministration.
38. It is concerning to this Service that this issue appears to have been ongoing for years. At the time of the resident’s complaint, the records indicate that the landlord had served at least 4 tort notices. The fact that the landlord repeatedly served these notices, only for the problem to return, demonstrates the notices were not having the desired effect. The impact of this upon the resident was that she continued to have to step over items left in the communal area when she was arriving home or leaving her property. This was a trip hazard. She was rightly concerned of what might happen if there was to be an emergency and she had to leave her property urgently, or if the emergency services had to get to her property. The landlord’s estate management policy says that it is responsible for ensuring there are no health and safety risks to residents and visitors on its estates. This incudes items blocking access routes and any trip hazards. This is mirrored in the landlord’s health and safety policy. We have therefore made an order that the landlord review this case again and confirm to the Ombudsman and the resident what steps it intends to take, if any, to prevent this from happening in the future.
39. In its complaint responses the landlord accepted there had been failures in its handling of the resident’s reports. It accepted it had failed to follow its policies and procedures and there had been unreasonable delays. It apologised for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident as a result and offered £450 compensation, £400 of which was for the failures identified in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about items left in the communal hallway. 
40. The resident has explained the frustration, distress and inconvenience she has been caused by the delays in this case and having to repeatedly chase the landlord for updates. She has also explained her concerns about the health and safety aspects of this case and the impact on her.
41. Having carefully considered the remedies guidance, this service has determined that it would be proportionate to award the resident an additional £250. This appropriately recognises the distress and inconvenience caused by the failures in this case.

Complaint handling

42. The landlord operates a 2-stage complaint process. At stage 1, the landlord will acknowledge the complaint within 2 working days of being made and will provide its response within 10 working days. At stage 2, the landlord will contact the resident within 2 working days and provide its response within 20 working days.
43. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) is applicable to all member landlords. It specifies a stage 1 complaint should be finalised in 10 working days, with no more than a further extension of 10 working days. A stage 2 complaint should be finalised within 20 working days, with a further extension of 10 working days if required. These time frames should not be exceeded without good reason.
44. The resident raised her initial complaint on 4 August 2022. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 15 August 2022. This was 8 days later and consistent with the landlord’s policy and the Code.
45. On 23 September 2022 the resident informed the landlord that she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and that she was going to contact the Ombudsman. Following contact from the resident, the Ombudsman wrote to the landlord on 27 February 2023 asking it to log the resident’s complaint and provide a response.
46. The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 22 March 2023, which was 17 working days later. This was not in keeping with the landlord’s policy or the Code.
47. On 20 April 2023 the resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint to stage 2. The landlord confirmed receipt of the resident’s email on the same date.
48. The resident contacted the Ombudsman on 13 June 2023 to advise that she had not received a stage 2 response. We wrote to the landlord on 14 June 2023 requesting it provide its stage 2 response by 22 June 2023.
49. On 16 June 2023 the landlord contacted the resident regarding her complaint and it was agreed to extend its stage 2 deadline to 13 July 2023. This was to allow the landlord time to investigate and monitor the agreed actions. The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 13 July 2023.
50. The Ombudsman acknowledges that there was an agreement between the resident and the landlord to extend the stage 2 response time. However, this was only progressed following intervention from this Service, which was not appropriate. The landlord should have ensured that it kept in sight its obligations to the resident as per the Code and contacted the resident as soon as it became aware that it needed more time to complete its investigations. As such, this inevitably caused delays in the landlord being able to provide its stage 2 response.
51. The landlord missed the opportunity to recognise the complaint escalation in 2022 and consequently, has in effect followed a 3-stage complaint process. This has unnecessarily and unreasonably delayed the resident’s ability to seek redress through this service. The delays in the landlord’s complaint handling resulted in the resident having to contact the Ombudsman for help, which she should not have to do.
52. In summary, there were failures in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint in that it:
    1. failed to escalate the resident’s complaint in September 2022
    2. unreasonably delayed in providing a response at stage 1 in March 2023
    3. delayed in informing the resident that it required additional time to complete its investigation
53. The Ombudsman would consider these failures to amount to maladministration.
54. The Ombudsman has considered the landlord’s offer of redress, which included an apology and acknowledgement of the delay at stage 1. It offered compensation of £50 in recognition of its failure. Having carefully considered the guidance on remedies, a fair level of compensation would be £100 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination

55. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s concerns about items left in the communal hallway.
56. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

57. The landlord must, within 28 days of the date of this determination:
    1. Provide the resident with a full written apology for the failures identified in this report.
    2. pay the resident compensation of £750 which is comprised of:
       1. £650 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about items left in the communal area; and
       2. £100 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.
    3. Review this case again and confirm to the Ombudsman and the resident what steps it intends to take to ensure all health and safety risks are removed from the communal hallway and how it will maintain this in the future.
58. This award replaces any offer made to date by the landlord through its internal complaints process. The landlord is entitled to offset against this sum any payments already made to the resident. All payments must be paid directly to the resident and not credited to the rent account unless otherwise agreed by the resident.
59. The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with evidence of how it has complied with the above orders within 28 days of the date of this determination.

Recommendations

60. The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord:
    1. Review the failings identified in this report and consider whether there are any learning outcomes to improve its service.
    2. Re-visit the Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management (KIM), available on the Ombudsman’s website. The KIM report recommends that the landlords take steps to establish a system of record keeping that ensures all contact from a resident (and any representatives), and the action it takes, are recorded and retained so that they can be provided to this service upon request, in response to a complaint.