Notting Hill Genesis (NHG) (202226410)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202226410

Notting Hill Genesis (NHG)

16 May 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 the resident’s requests for assistance with his rehousing needs.
The Ombudsman investigated the landlord’s:

a. Handling of the complaint and addressing alleged discrimination.

b. Knowledge and information management.

Background

The resident holds an assured tenancy on a one-bedroom flat on the first floor of a residential block owned by the housing association landlord. The tenancy agreement began on 26 February 1996. The resident lives with his wife and 5 children.
In 1996, the landlord was a small charity focused on helping vulnerable residents through rough sleeper initiatives (RSI). Several years ago, it was bought over by a large landlord, and a few years later, it merged with another large landlord. Today, the RSI accommodations are managed under the landlord’s Care and Support directorate.
Due to overcrowding, the resident has been registered on the landlord’s and the local authority’s choice-based letting (CBL) portal since 2006. Over the years, he has been the successful bidder on several family homes, which he declined for various reasons. Subsequently, his priority banding was downgraded to the lowest priority, band D, where he remained for several years.
In February 2022, the resident suffered an injury to his spinal cord and became paralysed from the waist down. Following surgeries and rehabilitation, the discharging hospital initiated an occupational therapist (OT) assessment in May 2022 that said the resident’s home was not safe for wheelchair use because of a narrow entryway and hallway. The OT said the resident would require a 4–5-bedroom house with a wide door and the ability to fit a wet room at ground level. The hospital said it would not discharge the resident until his housing needs were resolved.
On 7 June 2022, the resident invited his housing officer and her manager to a multi-agency meeting to discuss his housing needs. The resident’s medical team and the local authority’s social care team also attended the meeting. Following the meeting, the resident formally complained to the landlord’s chief executive on 10 June 2022. He said the housing manager had discriminated against him at the multi-agency meeting.
According to the resident, the manager said in the meeting that the landlord would no longer be able to assist him with a transfer, and he would have to approach the local authority for his housing needs. However, the resident said that previously, the landlord was able to help. He said the only change now was his disability status, and the landlord ‘refused’ to help by updating his priority bidding on the CBL portal so that he could get a transfer.
The housing officer responded on behalf of the landlord on 16 June 2022 and said:

a. Social care should approach the local authority to rehouse the resident. As this was an emergency, the local authority was more likely to assist promptly by offering suitable accommodation.

b. The Care and Support directorate did not have large properties. It had to rely on the CBL portal procedure. It would need to search the system to locate the resident’s transfer form; once found, it would update it and “request that the landlord make him a direct offer”. It was ‘working on it’ and hopefully would be ‘sorted’ soon.

c. It had already said all this to the resident at the multi-agency meeting, and the resident felt “reassured and grateful” for the support. Thereby, the complaint was solved as a “quick fix”.

The resident responded on the same day and said if the landlord had lost the form, it could fill out a new one, as he did not want “simple administrative work” to delay his transfer. The resident said that the housing officer and her manager had taken part in the multi-agency meeting; the complaint was about their comments. Therefore, they should not be involved in responding to his complaint as this was “biased”.
The landlord’s regional manager wrote to the resident on 12 August 2022. He said:

a. From its investigations, its staff have met all the relevant parts of its equality policy, which states that no one should be refused access to landlord services. To be compliant, staff should get to know their residents and their individual needs and tailor their services to meet the individual circumstances of residents.

b. The housing officer and manager had made these comments in the multi-agency meeting because the local authority had the legal obligation to act.

c. Care and Support did not have family houses under the directorate. They only managed small properties.

d. The resident should continue to bid for properties on the CBL portal.

On 23 September 2022, the resident contacted the landlord and said he had just noticed he was the top bidder on a property. It had tried to find out whether it was an adaptable property, but he had not heard back from the landlord. The landlord responded and said: “As I told you, RSI has no influence on the CBL portal. We only manage 1-bedroom flats. It said If there were any objections to the offer, the resident should contact the allocation officer. The resident contacted the allocation team, who informed him that installing a bathroom on the ground level was not feasible. As a result, the landlord rejected the offer and referred the resident back to his housing officer to update his details on the CBL portal.
The resident contacted this service on 30 January 2023 and said he had been moved to a stepped-down property provided by social services, where he stayed without his wife and children. He said the landlord ‘failed’ to provide suitable accommodation and failed to deal with his complaint. This Service contacted the landlord on 16 March 2023 and asked that it issue the resident with a formal response. The landlord said it could see the complaint had been logged but not responded to, and it would ask the relevant team to issue a stage 1 response. The resident’s housing officer made minor amendments to her June 2022 response and sent a new stage 1 response on 29 March 2023. The resident immediately asked to escalate the complaint to stage 2.
The housing manager (who had also attended the multi-agency meeting) responded on 15 September 2023 and said a stage 2 response letter was issued in August 2022. The manager amended the August 2022 complaint response and reissued the landlord’s final response letter.
In April 2024, the resident informed this service that he was still in the stepped-down property. He was in regular contact with the local authority about his housing needs. Regarding the landlord, he said it had not treated him fairly and it could have done more to assist.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident stated that the landlord had treated him unfairly and discriminated against him based on his disabilities. It is acknowledged that allegation of discrimination is very serious. It is not the role of this service to reach legal findings relating to the Equality Act 2010. Instead, we consider the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of alleged discrimination and whether it took reasonable steps to investigate the concerns raised.

Policies and procedures

The landlord operates a banding scheme to prioritise residents who need to move. Band A is the highest priority out of the 4 bands, and it could be awarded on medical grounds or for management transfers.
The landlord’s receiving–care–at–home policy says that if it is agreed that more suitable accommodation should be sought after hospital admission, it will work with the resident, the medical team, and social care to explore whether it could provide such accommodation. The landlord would ‘be honest’ about the chances of it being able to assist in finding a suitable property, according to the circumstances of the case.
The landlord’s allocation procedure says If a resident has a medical condition that is being made worse by the current housing, the landlord may give the resident a higher banding. The landlord will ask the resident to complete a medical self-assessment (MSA) form. The housing officer and housing manager will send the form for a full medical assessment by an external medical examiner. The housing manager will then make the final decision on medical priority based on the medical advisor’s recommendations.
The landlord’s allocation procedure says that when the landlord has a vacant property, it will check if it is a ‘true void’ or ‘non-true void’. Where a resident moves with the same landlord, it is not subjected to the nomination agreement. In these cases, the landlord would first make direct offers to residents in band A management transfer or band A medical. Properties allocated this way will not be advertised on the CBL portal. If it is a true void property, the nomination agreement confirms that the local authority gets nomination rights over 75% of properties.
The landlord’s allocation and lettings policy says: “In cases where a tenant is awarded band A because they have been approved for a management transfer, the landlord would make one reasonable direct offer. A direct offer is a single offer of a reasonable property made directly to the tenant, not through CBL. It would only make one direct offer.”
The landlord’s complaint policy says:

a. When receiving a complaint, the landlord decides whether the complaint could be solved as a ‘quick fix’. “A quick fix is a low-level, single-issue complaint that can be completely resolved within 10 days with one action, does not need a complex investigation to put right and for which the resident doesn’t require a formal response”. If the complaint is not solved or the resident remains dissatisfied, the complaint will then progress to stage 1.

b. Stage 2 is the final stage of the landlord’s internal complaint process.

c. When a complaint is brought against a staff member, their line manager will investigate it.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for assistance with his rehousing needs

It is recognised that there is a shortage of social housing across England and a chronic shortage in London. Landlords are, therefore, required to manage their stock effectively. This means allocating homes to those most in need. The key questions for this investigation are whether the landlord followed its policy and procedure, treated the resident fairly, and communicated with the resident effectively.
The Housing Act 1996 (as amended) places the legal duty of rehousing the resident on the local authority and not the landlord. To meet these legal obligations, many local authorities have nomination rights on a proportion of social housing across all social landlords within their borough. In this case, the local authority gets nomination rights over 75% of true voids properties. Therefore, the advice to approach the local authority for housing was appropriate.
The landlord’s allocation and letting policy, its transfer policy, allocation procedure and care-at-home policy together set out what the landlord should do in similar circumstances. The landlord would:

a. Work with adult social care, the local authority’s housing department, medical staff, occupational therapist, and the resident to discuss the resident’s housing needs.

b. It would update the priority transfer status according to the urgency of the situation. In cases where it identified urgent needs, it would place the resident in band A or B on medical grounds or management transfer.

c. In cases where the resident is awarded band A because they have been approved for a management transfer, the landlord would make one direct offer. A direct offer is a single offer of a reasonable property made directly to the resident, not through CBL. It would only make one direct offer.

d. It would review its band A management transfer list every 6 months to ensure it identifies and removes any barriers preventing residents from bidding on a property and completing their move.

Following the resident’s injury, the landlord acted appropriately by participating in multi-agency meetings in June 2022 to discuss the resident’s housing needs. It then continued to work with the resident’s medical team, the local authority, and social care from June 2022 to October 2022, where it participated in another multi-agency meeting. This was appropriate.
From the outset, the landlord managed the expectations of the resident and his medical team that it may not be able to help. At the multi-agency meeting in June 2022, it said social care should approach the local authority to assist, as it had access to all social housing stock in its borough and ultimately had the legal obligation to act. The landlord acted reasonably here.
Following the first multi-agency meeting in June 2022, the landlord’s policies (paragraphs 16 and 17 of this report) say that the resident’s transfer form should be updated, and a direct offer should be requested. This was confirmed in an internal email dated 13 June 2022: “In view of this recent medical update, you will need to update the transfer form and include the report and request a direct offer”.
In its June 2022 complaint response, the landlord said to the resident that it “needed to locate the form and request a direct offer” and that it “should not take long and would hopefully be sorted out soon”. The landlord located the form and requested colleagues add the resident to its direct offer list on 17 June 2022. An internal email on 1 July 2022 said: “It was seeing whether [a colleague] was able to make a direct offer for a larger property move, and it seemed like they were agreeing to this”. There is a gap in the evidence, and it is unclear what happened next.
This Service had not seen evidence that the landlord had an available property matching the resident’s description during this time. It is also not the role of this Service to determine whether a property should be offered to a resident over other residents who may also have urgent needs. Residents are, therefore, encouraged to maximise their chances of securing a home by continuing to bid on available properties.
However, the landlord should have kept the resident up to date on whether it accepted the resident to its direct offer list. The complaint handling code says, “Outstanding actions must still be tracked and actioned expeditiously with regular updates provided to the resident.” This was an outstanding matter from the previous response, and it was not appropriate that the landlord did not address this in its follow-up response. This was a failure by the landlord.
Instead, the landlord repeatedly said in its June 2022, August 2022, March 2023, and September 2024 complaint responses, as well as in its correspondence with the resident in September 2022, that it did not manage large family homes under its Care and Support directorate, which caused confusion about whether there was an exclusion to residents in care and support.
The landlord’s complaint procedure says: “It needed to manage the residents’ expectations, as it would sometimes have to say no, and it is better to be ‘honest’ about this. In cases where it would say no, the complaint handler should explain the reasons (which may include sending the customer a copy of the relevant section of the policy) and offer alternatives where possible”. If the landlord decided not to accept the resident for a direct offer, it should have explained this to the resident and provided the relevant policy to explain its decision. There is no evidence that the landlord followed its procedure here, and there was a failure to communicate with the resident.
The landlord’s transfer policy says it would review all applicants within its band A management transfer every 6 months to ensure it “identifies and removes any barriers that may be preventing the resident from bidding for properties and completing their move.” According to the records, the landlord reviewed the resident’s case in 2012, 2018, and 2020 before his injury. It then reviewed the case again in 2022; there is no evidence it has done so since.
According to its transfer policy, the landlord should have carried out a full medical assessment of the resident. There is no evidence that the landlord informed the resident to complete the medical self-assessment form required to send to its medical examiner (paragraph 18 of this report).
The landlord submitted evidence that the resident’s medical form had been updated on the CBL portal. However, there is no date on the completed form, and it is therefore impossible to know when this was updated. In September 2022, a top bid was refused because the property was not adaptable. The resident approached his housing officer, who signposted him to the allocation officer, who referred him back to the housing officer to update his details. Had the landlord carried out its 6-month check, it may have been able to identify the barriers that had prevented the resident from bidding on properties and completing his move.
Overall, while the landlord offer some support to the resident with his rehousing needs, it did not do all it could to assist. There were shortcomings in its communication, complaint handling and record keeping that undermined the landlord’s efforts to assist and support the resident. The landlord should have clearly and transparently set out its position and addressed the resident’s concerns fully. However, it should be noted that even if the resident was accepted to the landlord’s direct offer list, there are no guarantees that a suitable property would have been found. Nevertheless, there were failures which amounted to maladministration.
When assessing what would put it right for the resident, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider a proportionate redress in line with the failings identified. The Ombudsman does not seek to punish a landlord for things that have gone wrong. Instead, we focus on the impact on the resident because of any failings by the landlord, as identified in our assessment. With this in mind, orders have been made below to compensate the resident for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s shortcomings in its communications, complaint handling and record-keeping.
Additional orders have been made below for the landlord to put this right, learn from the outcome, and implement measures to prevent reoccurrences.

The landlord’s Handling of the complaint and addressing alleged discrimination

The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code says: “A complaint investigation must be conducted impartially, seeking sufficient, reliable information from both parties to make fair and appropriate findings and recommendations”.
The resident formally complained to the landlord’s chief executive office on 13 June 2022. He said the housing officer and manager had ‘discriminated’ against him. He said that previously, the landlord had been able to assist with his housing needs, but at the June 2022 multi-agency meeting, the landlord had said it could no longer help. The resident said the only change now was his disability, and the landlord ‘refused’ to help.
The landlord’s complaint policy says that where an allegation is brought against an officer, their line manager will investigate the complaint. This complaint was about the comments of the housing officer and the housing manager in the meeting. Therefore, a different manager should have investigated the resident’s complaint. Yet it was transferred from the chief executive to the housing officer to respond. This was not appropriate. In his escalation request in June 2022, the resident said this was “biased” and that a different manager should investigate the complaint. The resident wrote to the landlord again the following day and emphasised this point. There is no evidence that the landlord had acted on the resident’s concerns at that time.
Further, the landlord’s complaint policy defines a “quick fix” as a single issue, a low-level complaint that could be entirely resolved within 10 days. its complaint procedure says if the landlord can resolve the query to the residents’ satisfaction within 48 hours, then it will log this on the system and close the case as a quick fix. The Complaint Handling Code from 2022 says: “The Ombudsman encourages the early and local resolution of issues between landlords and residents and recognises that there may be times appropriate action can be agreed immediately”. It was clear, however, that in this case, the resident’s complaint did not fit the criteria for a quick fix. The complaint was a multi-faceted complaint that would require input from various colleagues and appropriate investigation. Treating the complaint as a “quick fix” was not appropriate.
The only reference in the landlord’s responses to the word ‘discrimination’ was in its quick-fix response when it said it was “definitely not discrimination”. It then noted that the Care and Support directorate did not have access to family houses, which caused further confusion.
According to the landlord’s complaint procedure at that time, if a quick fix was not resolved, the matter should be escalated to stage 1. Against a target of 10 working days, the regional manager responded 41 working days later, on 12 August 2022. This complaint made no reference to the stage of the complaint, and there were no escalation rights either.
When the resident approached this service on 28 February 2023, we asked the landlord to respond to the resident formally on 16 March 2023. The landlord then issued the resident with a stage 1, where it should have submitted a stage 2 response. This was not appropriate.
The same housing officer responded to this complaint. The resident escalated his complaint to stage 2. The landlord sent its second stage 2 letter 118 working days later, on 15 September 2023. In its stage 2 response, it said its August 2022 response letter was its final response letter, despite not indicating this at that time. This was not appropriate.
Furthermore, in its August 2022 complaint response the landlord explained that the housing manager had made the comments because the local authority had the legal obligation to act (under part 6 of the Housing Act 1996). This is acknowledged. However, the crux of the complaint was that the landlord was able to help previously and that now he had said it could no longer help. The resident explained the only thing that had changed was his disability, and he said this was discriminatory. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to address this within its complaint response and explain the steps it took to investigate the allegation. This was a failure by the landlord.
All 4 complaint responses had largely the same information, and all failed to spot earlier errors they had made or things they would do differently. This damaged the relationship between the landlord and the resident and magnified the resident’s sense of unfairness. It also provided context to the resident’s substantive complaint about the assistance it had received from the landlord regarding his rehousing needs.
Overall, there was a significant delay in progressing the resident’s complaint and ultimately bringing it for investigation by this service. The resident exhausted the landlord’s internal complaint process twice before he was able to bring his complaint for investigation by this service, causing the resident prolonged distress and inconvenience. He said to the landlord in June 2022 and March 2023, as well as to this service in January 2023 that his mental health was suffering because of his situation. He said he was “pleading for help, he needed help”.
It is important to note that we have seen no evidence that the resident was treated unfavourably (based on his protected characteristics or otherwise). On the other hand, there is also no evidence that the landlord investigated the resident’s allegations. This was not appropriate. Given the resident had raised the complaint with the chief executive officer and that it was cascaded back to the housing officer for a quick fix, it was up to the landlord to show in its follow-up complaint response that it had investigated the complaint fairly and impartially. There is no evidence that it discussed the allegation of discrimination with the resident, and it was not properly addressed in its complaint response.
Overall, the landlord’s internal complaint process delayed the resident by 314 working days, as the resident had to exhaust the landlord’s internal complaint process twice before escalating the complaint to this service. The landlord’s repeated errors and failure to learn from the first round of its internal complaint process had damaged the resident’s trust in the landlord’s internal complaint process and compounded his distress. It also undermined the landlord’s efforts to resolve the substantive complaint.
Further orders have been made below for the landlord to put it right and learn from the outcome.

The landlord’s knowledge and information management

The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on record keeping says that an accurate audit trail is integral to a landlord’s service delivery. The landlord should have systems in place to maintain accurate and detailed records of any conversations or correspondence so that it can satisfy itself and the resident (and ultimately the Ombudsman if necessary) and ensure that it acted in accordance with its policies and procedures.
There were gaps in the evidence throughout this case. Some documents had no dates, some had conflicting dates, and some were irrelevant to the complaint.
In June 2022, the landlord could not locate the resident’s transfer form to update it and request a direct offer. There is a gap in the evidence, and it is unclear how and when this was resolved.
There is conflicting evidence about whether the resident could bid on adapted properties. Some documents showed his mobility requirements (and thus bidding eligibility), and some did not. The landlord submitted to this service the medical form completed on behalf of the resident on the CBL portal. This form had no date, and it is not possible to know when it was completed.
In September 2022, the resident’s bid was rejected because it was unsuitable for wheelchair use. The allocation officer referred the resident to the housing officer to update his medical details on the system. The landlord had said in June 2022 that all details were up to date. In July 2022 it sent confirmation that the details were up to date. In August 2022, it said this was not, and in September 2022, it refused the resident’s bids. Evidently, the allocation officer did not know have access to the resident’s needs.
In November 2022, the local authority repeatedly asked the landlord to confirm its action plan. The landlord apologised that the local authority had to do that and said it would find out and inform the local authority. It is unclear whether the information was missing, difficult to extract, or unreliable. Either way, the landlord could not rely on its record-keeping practices. There was a further gap in the evidence, and it is unclear how this was resolved.
This service asked the landlord to confirm its housing stock within the resident’s borough, but the landlord said it was not able to. The regulator of social housing requires all social landlords to comply with the Tenancy Standards. One requirement is to keep an accurate and up-to-date list of their housing stock and allocations. The landlord must also keep records under its allocation agreement with the local authority. If the landlord does not have records, it should report itself to the regulator. Orders have been made below for the landlord to identify learning and implement necessary changes to improve its record-keeping practices failure identified in this report.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for assistance with his rehousing needs.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord’s handling of the complaint and addressing alleged discrimination.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord’s knowledge and information management.

Orders

Within 6 weeks from the date of this report, the landlord must arrange a multi-agency meeting with the resident and the local authority (this could be a virtual meeting). In the meeting, the landlord must:

a. Ensure that the resident’s search criteria are up to date on its system and the CBL portal.

b. Share its expertise with the local authority and discuss ways it could help to resolve the resident’s housing situation as soon as possible. This could include temporary accommodation according to the landlord’s resources.

c. After the meeting, the landlord must write to the resident. It must include the following (at the minimum):

A summary of the discussion points and any action plans that may be agreed upon in the meeting.
Explain whether the resident is on the landlord’s direct offer. Irrespective of its decision, the landlord must explain what caused the confusion and the measures it would take to ensure this does not reoccur.
Confirm that any barriers that may have prevented the resident from bidding or receiving a direct offer have been removed (for example, historic offers he had refused, or mobility status).
Apologise for the failures identified in this report.

d. A copy of this letter must be sent to this service within 6 weeks from the date of this report.

Within 4 weeks from the date of this report, the landlord must pay the resident directly £850 for the distress and inconvenience caused, broken down as follows:

a. £600 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its assistance with the resident’s rehousing needs.

£250 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling and addressing alleged discrimination.

b. Evidence of payment must be sent to this service within 4 weeks.

Within 6 weeks from the date of this report, a senior member of the landlord’s leadership team, who is independent of the Care and Support directorate, must conduct a full review of the case and identify the measures it would need to take to prevent similar failings from occurring. A copy of the review must be sent to this service within 6 weeks. The review must include (at the minimum):

a. Whether Care and Support residents are eligible to access the services the landlord offers its general needs residents. If there is an exclusion, this should be set out in the relevant policies and procedures.

b. Its strategic oversight, communication channels, and operational practices with the Care and Support directorate, particularly the RSI team.

c. Whether the central complaint team of the landlord has sufficient oversight of the complaint handling of smaller directorates within the group and whether it has sufficient measures in place to ensure all directorates handle complaints in accordance with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.

d. Investigate the reason why it was not able to confirm its housing stock when asked by this service and consider whether it would need to refer itself to the regulator of social housing.