Notting Hill Genesis (NHG) (202225311)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202225311

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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. The resident’s request for no contact from the Housing Officer.
2. The automated messages sent to the resident regarding arrears.
3. The associated complaint.

Background

The resident holds an assured tenancy at the property. The tenancy commenced in 2014.
On 4 November 2022 the resident told the landlord she was unhappy with how her Housing Officer handled a situation between the resident and a neighbour. The landlord responded by letter on 15 November 2022, however no complaint reference number was allocated. The resident then received an email on 23 November 2022 from the landlord regarding outstanding arrears on her account, despite requesting her details be removed from the system in June 2022. The resident asked for her details to be removed from the system again and for no further contact with the Housing Officer.
The resident complained to the landlord on 28 November 2022. She said she had asked the Housing Officer not to contact her on 23 November 2022, however she had later received a text message from the Housing Officer regarding her account. She was unhappy that her contact details had been added on to the computer system without her permission and reiterated that she did not want contact from the Housing Officer. The landlord sent an informal response on 28 November 2022 and responded at stage 1 on 13 December 2022.
In the stage 1 response the landlord confirmed it did not agree that the Housing Officer had done anything untoward and asked to move forward with the resident and Housing Officer working together. It confirmed that the resident’s details had been removed from the system. The landlord explained the account notifications are sent automatically from the system so it did not consider this a failing on the Housing Officer’s part.
The resident was dissatisfied with the response and asked to escalate the complaint to stage 2 on 14 December 2022. She said the landlord had not addressed how her details had been added back onto the system without her permission and felt it had “glossed over” the Housing Officer’s approach. In the stage 2 response, sent on 15 February 2023, the landlord said it would not agree to the resident having no contact with the Housing Officer. It did not explain how the resident’s details were added back onto the system. The landlord offered £100 for this error as well as a further £100 for the late issuing of the stage 2 response.
In referring the matter to this Service, the resident remained unhappy with the landlord’s overall handling off the issue and its complaint responses. She wanted the landlord to agree to her having no contact with the Housing Officer.
It is relevant to note that, in addition to the complaint, the landlord also considered the resident’s request for no contact with the Housing Officer under its Unacceptable Behaviour Policy. On 23 December 2022 the landlord emailed the resident explaining it felt the request was unreasonable and rejected the request. The resident appealed the decision on 9 January 2023 on the basis that she felt the landlord’s decision was not impartial. The landlord sent the resident its final response to her appeal on 24 January 2023 and rejected the request. As this was considered alongside and with explicit reference to the complaint it has been included in this assessment.

Scope of the investigation.

The resident has had a number of complaints both with the landlord and with this Service. It is important to define and separate each complaint to ensure a full and thorough investigation to each issue. This Service can only investigate issues which have already been investigated through the landlord’s internal complaints procedure.
The resident has made this Service aware that the issues with the automated arrears messages have happened on more than one occasion. For the purposes of this investigation we will only be considering the instance investigated by the landlord. For the avoidance of doubt this investigation is only assessing the landlord’s handling of the complaint related to the automated messages sent to the resident in November 2022.

Assessment and findings

The resident’s request for no contact from the Housing Officer.

It is clear this situation has been distressing for the resident. It may help to first clarify that we are not here to assess if there was any misconduct on the part of individual staff members, rather we will investigate whether the landlord acted fairly and reasonably in dealing with the resident’s request for no contact with the staff member in question.
It may be helpful to first provide some context of the situation that led to the resident’s request:
1. The resident has told this Service that there is a history of noise nuisance between her and the neighbour.
2. On 2 November 2022 the neighbour asked the Housing Officer to inform the resident that they were having a party and so there might be some noise.
3. The Housing Officer failed to pass the message on and so the resident approached the neighbour about the noise levels during the event.
4. The neighbour told the resident that she had asked the Housing Officer to inform her about the event.
5. The resident expressed her dissatisfaction in an email to the landlord on 4 November 2022 and asked the landlord to explain what had happened.
In response to this, the Housing Officer:
1. Apologised for the mistake in an email dated 7 November 2022 and explained that it was not the role of the Housing Officer to pass messages between neighbours.
2. Acknowledged this had not been made clear to the neighbour and apologised for this confusion.
3. Offered to make contact with the neighbour to clarify what had happened.
On 15 November 2022 the manager of the team also emailed the resident to apologise and explained that it aimed to learn from incidents such as this.
On 23 November 2022 the resident received an email from the Housing Officer about arrears on the account. The resident replied and told the landlord she no longer wanted to be contacted by the Housing Officer because her details were not meant to be held on the system and she had lost trust in the Housing Officer after the events earlier that month. The resident wanted all contact to go through the manager of the team and said that any essential notifications could be sent to her by post. The evidence shows the resident sent the landlord 5 emails on 23 November 2022 asking for confirmation that the Housing Officer would not contact her again.
On 28 November 2022 the resident received a further text message from the Housing Officer about arrears on the account and made a formal complaint. The resident was unhappy that the Housing Officer had contacted her despite her requests not to be contacted by the Housing Officer on 23 November 2022.
The landlord sent the resident an email on 28 November 2022 outlining its stance on the matter. The landlord explained that email and text message about arrears had been system generated and not sent from the Housing Officer. It explained that the Housing Officer was new to the patch and that it was to be expected that there would be a period of transition. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s frustration with the recent events and suggested finding an agreeable alternative method of communication with the Housing Officer. The resident replied and said she was not in agreement with this approach and requested the landlord proceed with the formal complaint.
In its stage 1 response of 13 December 2022 the landlord:
1. Apologised for any inconvenience the situation had caused.
2. Said it did not agree the Housing Officer had done anything untoward and that it wanted to move forward with the relationship positively.
3. Confirmed that the Housing Officer was the first point of contact for all tenancy management queries.
4. Explained that it monitors staff performance and holds regular 1 to 1 meetings to ensure performance is as it would expect.
In its stage 2 response of 15 February 2023 the landlord:
1. Said it was not unreasonable for a Housing Officer to make contact with a resident on their patch and explained there may be times where this contact is essential to enable the Housing Officer to perform her duties.
2. Explained that contact details are held on a central system and the automated messages were sent by this system and not by the Housing Officer so no fault could be apportioned to her.
This Service assesses cases in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes. In its responses the landlord acknowledged and apologised for the errors made and explained how it monitors staff performance to prevent future incidents. Outside of the complaint responses the Housing Officer and manager also sent emails to the resident explaining about the errors and apologising for them. The landlord has acted reasonably in this regard.
On 6 December 2022 the landlord asked the resident to confirm how she would like the Housing Officer to communicate with her because it was not sustainable for the manager to continue to deal with her contact. The resident continued to refuse contact with the Housing Officer and so the landlord considered her request under its Unacceptable Behaviour Policy. The policy notes that, unless staff misconduct has been identified, it is unreasonable for residents to refuse to work with a specific member of staff. It classifies this as bullying. The landlord acted appropriately in considering her request under this policy as well as under its complaints policy.
On 14 December 2022 the landlord emailed the resident explaining that her request for no contact with the Housing Officer was considered unreasonable as no misconduct had been identified, in accordance with its Unacceptable Behaviour Policy. The landlord explained that the resident could appeal the decision.
The resident sent an appeal by email on 9 January 2023. In her appeal the resident explained that she did not trust the Housing Officer and outlined the occasions on which she felt the Housing Officer had not done as she said she would. The resident told the landlord she felt the Housing Officer was being intentionally misleading and that her conduct was not acceptable.
On 24 January 2023 the landlord rejected the resident’s appeal. In its response, the landlord:
1. Acknowledged the situation that led to a lack of trust and confidence in the Housing Officer’s abilities.
2. Noted the scenarios she had outlined in her appeal had been dealt with through the complaints process so the specific issues would not be revisited as part of the appeal.
3. Offered mediation through an independent external provider.
4. Explained that new members of staff complete core training on the job so this sometimes means they are unable to answer queries immediately and must seek advice from colleagues.
5. Confirmed that during the Housing Officer’s probation period they will have weekly meetings with the manager to review communication from the resident to offer reassurance to the resident and to identify any ongoing training requirements.
It is noted that the landlord issued its stage 2 response after issuing its appeal rejection to the resident. The landlord did not include all of the options outlined above in its stage 2 response which may have helped conclude the issue with clarity. However this is not considered to have caused significant detriment to the resident as the appeal rejection was clear in its outcome so no service failure has been found.
In conclusion, the landlord thoroughly investigated the issue through both its complaints process and against its Unacceptable Behaviour Policy. It found no evidence of staff misconduct, explained this to the resident and offered various solutions to the issue. The landlord acted reasonably in rejecting the resident’s request for no contact with the Housing Officer and this investigation has found no maladministration in its handling of the matter.

The automated messages sent to the resident regarding arrears.

It is important to clarify that this investigation is not able to consider if there has been a breach of data protection law, which would be a matter for the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). Instead we can consider if the landlord has followed its policies and procedures and if it acted reasonably in dealing with the resident’s request specifically in regards to her preferred method of communication.
The landlord’s privacy policy is published on its website and says that residents cannot opt out of receiving certain communication that is necessary to deliver its services to residents. This includes contact about arrears. In June 2022 the landlord agreed to remove the resident’s phone number and email address from its computer system. It agreed all communication with the resident would be by post with the exception of responding to emails where the resident has initiated the conversation. It provided evidence to the resident that the details had been removed in the form of a screen shot of her file on its computer system.
On 23 November 2022 the landlord’s computer system sent an automated email to the resident about arrears on her account. On 28 November 2022 the landlord’s computer system sent another automated text message to the resident about arrears on her account. In her initial complaint of 28 November 2022 the resident raised a concern about her contact details being readded to the computer system without her permission. She asked for the details to be removed again.
The landlord responded on 28 November 2022 outlining the consequences of having the details removed, which included potential delays in organising repair appointments. It asked the resident to confirm again that she wanted her details removed from the system. It is unclear why the landlord asked the resident to confirm this when she had explicitly requested the details be removed on at least 7 occasions between 23 and 28 November 2022. It is also unclear why the landlord explained the consequences of removing the details from its system when it had already discussed the matter 5 months prior in June 2022. If the landlord had wanted to refuse the request under the terms of its privacy policy (to enable it to deliver essential services) it should have done so when the initial request was made in June 2022.
In its stage 1 response of 13 December 2022 the landlord said it had removed the resident’s contact details from the system and it regretted any distress or inconvenience caused. However it failed to explain how the resident’s details had been readded to the system which was a cause of concern for the resident. This formed the basis for the resident’s escalation request on 14 December 2022 where the resident felt the landlord had avoided accountability in failing to address this.
In its stage 2 response of 1 February 2023 the landlord said the resident’s details had “somehow” been added back onto the system and offered £100 in recognition of the error. The landlord failed to apologise or offer any further insight into how the error occurred. As per the Housing Ombudsman Complaint Handling Code (the Code) accountability and transparency are integral to a positive complaint handling culture.
In line with our dispute resolution principles, it is positive that the landlord made an offer of compensation to remedy the issue. However it is unclear how the landlord calculated its offer of redress when it failed to demonstrate accountability or transparency around how the error occurred. It is also unreasonable that the landlord failed to offer an apology when the resident made it aware on multiple occasions how important the matter was to her and this is a further service failure.
In conclusion, although the landlord removed the contact details from its computer system in a timely manner and offered £100 compensation for the error, it failed to explain how the issue had occurred. In failing to address this it missed the opportunity to demonstrate learning and offer reassurance that this issue would not happen again. This investigation has found service failure in this matter and orders have been made below.

The associated complaint.

The landlord’s complaints policy outlines a 2-stage complaint process in line with the Code. It details an option for a Quick Fix where complaints can be resolved within the relevant local team but explains these are still logged and closed on its system. The Code in place at the time of the complaint did include a stage 3 but noted this should only be used when expressly agreed to by both parties.
The Code is clear that having informal stages (such as quick fixes) is not appropriate. On receiving the complaint on 28 November 2022 the landlord:
1. Issued an informal response. It explained the steps it had already taken and made a suggestion for how to move forward.
2. Confirmed with the resident that she was not in agreement with its suggestion and wanted to proceed with the formal complaint.
3. Logged the complaint and provided the resident with a complaint reference number.
In issuing an informal response upon receipt of the complaint the landlord has not acted in accordance with the Code. However because it responded and logged the formal complaint within 12 hours of receiving the complaint it is not deemed to have hindered the resident’s access to the formal complaints process. No service failure has been found in this matter, however a recommendation has been made below.
The Code states that complaints should be responded to at stage 1 within 10 working days and at stage 2 within 20 working days. The landlord issued its stage 1 response within a reasonable timescale of 11 working days. However it took the landlord 45 working days to issue its stage 2 response on 15 February 2023. There is no evidence of the landlord agreeing an extension with the resident, rather there is evidence of the resident chasing the landlord for a response on at least 3 occasions between 24 January 2023 and 15 February 2023.
In the stage 2 response the landlord acknowledged the delayed response and offered £100 compensation. The landlord did not apologise nor did it offer an explanation for the delay. Though it is positive that the landlord offered financial redress for the delay, it is not reasonable that the landlord failed to apologise especially knowing the resident had been actively chasing the response. This is a service failure.
The resident told the landlord on 10 February 2023 that she felt her complaint was being passed around between team members. She informed this Service that she felt her case was not reviewed by anybody impartial and was never going to be upheld. It is reasonable that the landlord utilised the tools available in both its complaints policy and Unacceptable Behaviour Policy in this case. The evidence shows the cases were reviewed by separate staff members which is appropriate in the circumstances.
It is noted that the landlord issued its response under its Unacceptable Behaviour Policy on 24 January 2023, prior to issuing its stage 2 response on 15 February 2023. Its response on 24 January 2023 clearly outlined that it would not revisit issues that had already been investigated through the complaints process. This understandably led to some confusion for the resident who was yet to receive the final outcome of her complaint. Although the landlord took an appropriate approach in handling the matter using both policies, the landlord should ensure that residents are kept updated on both the complaints and appeals in a timely manner to prevent any confusion in future.
In conclusion, the landlord acknowledged and offered compensation in recognition of the delays in issuing its stage 2 response. However it failed to apologise or explain the cause of the delay which is a service failure. Although overall it was reasonable for the landlord to handle the matter under 2 policies, it caused the resident some confusion that the landlord failed to acknowledge. This investigation has found service failure.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for no contact with the Housing Officer.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the automated messages sent to the resident about arrears.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders

Within 4 weeks the landlord is ordered to:
1. Provide a written apology to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
2. Review how the resident’s contact details were added on to the system in November 2022 and how it will prevent this happening again. The landlord must share the outcome of this review with the resident.
3. Pay the resident the £200 compensation offered in its stage 2 response, if not already paid.

Recommendations

The landlord should ensure all staff are trained on the correct process of logging complaints to prevent informal responses being sent outside of the process.