Notting Hill Genesis (NHG) (202310838)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202310838

Notting Hill Genesis (NHG)

06 March 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:
   1. Reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) from the neighbour above.
   2. Concerns about staff conduct and missed appointments.
   3. Concerns about the layout of the kitchen and lack of a shower.
   4. Associated complaint.

Background

2. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. She lives alone and has several health and wellbeing issues. These include asthma and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), for which she receives support from her local community mental health team.
3. The resident had downsized into her 1–bed flat from a 2-bedroom house via an assisted move scheme with the landlord. On moving in, she raised several concerns with the landlord which she did not think were responded to satisfactorily.
4. The resident raised a formal complaint to the landlord on 20 December 2022. She said she had concerns about the size and problematic layout of the kitchen. She had requested a shower to support her medical needs. She had also reported problems with the upstairs neighbour who regularly had loud, aggressive phone conversations, stamped around his flat and repeatedly slammed the communal door. She said she had sent several emails raising these concerns, which had mostly gone unanswered.
5. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 17 January 2023. It said the surveyor had inspected the kitchen and determined it was of an appropriate size and layout for a 1–bed flat. It said the problem was the resident’s cooker, which was too deep. It agreed to write a general letter to all residents about noise and being respectful of neighbours. It noted she had applied for a transfer on medical grounds (because of her PTSD and the ASB).
6. The resident requested the escalation of her complaint on the same day. She said the housing officer’s (HO) actions had caused the neighbour to become aggressive towards her. She said its lack of action was because the HO had a personal grudge against her.
7. Following our intervention, the landlord issued its stage 2 response on 4 July 2023. It acknowledged its communication had been poor and offered her £150 compensation and a meeting to discuss all her concerns and agree on an action plan. It offered her £50 for the stress and inconvenience caused by not replying to her MP within its response time. It disagreed that its HO had created an abusive situation with the neighbour or held a grudge against her. It determined it had not addressed the ASB appropriately in its stage 1 response and offered her £250 compensation for this service failure. Following a further report on 15 Jan 2023, it was satisfied a general letter to all residents was an appropriate response. It offered her £150 compensation for its HO not addressing the issues of changed appointments in the complaint response. It acknowledged it had failed to follow procedure in its handling of the ASB and MP’s complaint response, for which it offered her £600 compensation. It acknowledged its response to the stage 2 complaint was also out of time, it offered her £250 for the delay. Its total offer was £1,450 in compensation.
8. The resident escalated her complaint to us because she was not satisfied with the landlord’s response.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

9. Part of the resident’s complaint related to the negative effect the ASB and the landlord’s inaction in the matter had on her mental health, treatment and recovery. The courts are the most effective place for disputes about personal injury and illness. This is largely because independent medical experts are appointed to give evidence. They have a duty to the court to provide unbiased insights on the diagnosis, prognosis, and cause of any illness or injury. When disputes arise over the cause of an injury, oral testimony can be examined in court. Therefore, the complaint about the negative affect on her mental health, treatment and recovery is better dealt with via the court.

ASB

1. Where a landlord admits failings, the Ombudsman’s role is to assess whether the resolution offered by the landlord to put things right and remedied the complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. The Ombudsman also considers whether the landlord acted in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes.

2. When considering the response to a complaint about ASB, the statutory guidance for frontline professionals requires that agencies must consider the effect that the behaviour in question is having on the lives of those subject to it. The harm, or the potential for harm to be caused to the victim, is an important consideration for the landlord in determining its approach, as the more vulnerable can be less resilient to ASB.
3. The landlord was aware the resident was vulnerable. She had declared her diagnosis of complex PTSD, the result of her being the victim of a serious and traumatic crime. She had been its tenant for many years, and it had supported her with an assisted move to this property.
4. Under Section 20 of the Equality Act 2010, landlords have a responsibility to make reasonable adjustments for residents who are at a substantial disadvantage compared to residents who do not have a disability. While it is not the Ombudsman’s role to determine whether a resident has a disability, it is our role to look at whether the landlord had considered whether she had, or any other protected characteristic where its responsibilities under the Act would apply.
5. The resident’s disclosure that she had complex PTSD should have been a trigger for the landlord to consider whether she had a disability and protected characteristics under the Equality Act, and what duties it might have towards her.
6. The resident contacted the landlord 3 times between May and July 2022, to discuss her concerns about noise nuisance from the resident upstairs. She requested information on any previous problems with this, whether there was any soundproofing, as well as seeking advice on how to move. Records showed she was affected by noise issues at her previous address. Aware she was vulnerable, and that noise presented a particular issue, it was reasonable to expect the landlord to act with some urgency to assess the situation.
7. The Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Noise Complaints published in October 2022, explains that where noise reports do not meet the statutory threshold, then landlords should adopt a proactive good neighbourhood management policy, distinct from its ASB policy. The landlord has a Domestic Noise and Neighbourhood Disputes Policy. Examples of domestic noise include daytime household activities, talking and banging doors. It excludes instances where the noise is too loud or amplified, which is considered a noise nuisance and dealt with as ASB.
8.  On receipt of a report of noise, the landlord says it would initially advise the resident to contact the neighbour to discuss the matter (if they felt safe to do so). Alternatively, it will advise residents about the tools available to help them resolve the issue. These include mediation, advice from housing management and support from itself or an agency.
9. There was no evidence that the landlord took any of the actions that were set out in its policy. It did not respond to the resident until she made her formal complaint in December 2022, 7 months after first raising her concerns. The lack of timeliness of its response to her reports of nuisance would also indicate it had not considered the resident’s vulnerability.
10. The landlord’s stage 1 response detailed its actions to the incident reported 15 January 2023, which it treated as ASB (rather than domestic noise). However, it provided no evidence to demonstrate how it had considered or responded to the resident’s reports prior to this date.
11.  On receipt of a report of ASB, the landlord’s policy requires it to contact the customer within 1 working day and offer to visit them within 5 working days to monitor any risk. The resident had reported (15 January 2023) the neighbour’s behaviour had been intrusive on this day (shouting, swearing and slamming the communal door). She said normally she would leave, but she was too ill to do so. It would appear its response to her report was its stage 1 reply, which was sent on 17 January 2023. This was 2 days for contact, which exceeds its 1-day policy contact time.
12. The landlord did not arrange a visit within 5 days to assess the risk, despite the resident having complex PTSD and her allegations of how the neighbour’s behaviour affected her. Instead, its stage 1 response declined her request for it to contact the neighbour directly, to prevent any escalation. It said it would send a letter to all the residents in the block reminding them about their noise and behaviour, which it did.
13. A significant issue was the neighbour slamming the communal door. It would therefore have been appropriate for the landlord to consider fitting a self-closer mechanism to it. This would have prevented anyone from being able to slam it and may have eased some of the resident’s distress.
14.  During the period of investigation of her stage 2 complaint (January to June 2023), the resident reported the neighbour had become abusive towards her, shouting and screaming through her intercom and banging on her door. She attributed this to the ASB letter the landlord sent out to all the residents. The resident’s mental health support worker also contacted it 3 times during this period. They expressed their concern about the impact the neighbour’s behaviour was having on her mental health and how it was making her treatment unsuccessful.
15. The landlord responded to the support worker to apologise for the delay in getting the stage 2 reply out, explaining that it was taking time because it needed an independent overview. It did not, however, respond to their concerns for the resident’s health and well-being or implement its policy. It should have contacted the resident, logged the further incidents of ASB, and carried out a risk assessment to determine what action was necessary.
16. The landlord’s response of 4 July 2023 said having gone through the records since May 2022, it did not feel it addressed the ASB sufficiently in the stage 1 complaint response. It acknowledged it was only the incident of 15 January 2023 that the HO responded to in her complaint reply. It awarded her £250 for this service failing. However, it treated this as the only significant incident, therefore failing to consider further appropriate action for the time the issues had gone on for.
17. The landlord said records showed it “had raised cases on its system and took some action but closed the case in October 2022”. It acknowledged it had not followed its ASB policy and awarded compensation to the resident. However, it also said it was satisfied that she took the steps as per its procedures by raising a case on its system and sending a letter to the building. While it indicated that it closed an ASB case for the resident in October 2022, there was no evidence to support it opened or closed an ASB case. The HO’s action, of sending a general block letter was not the initial step required in its policy. Without carrying out a risk assessment, it was difficult to see how it could determine what actions were appropriate and whether they had been correct for this vulnerable resident.
18. As well as acknowledging that it failed to implement its policy, the landlord also acknowledged that there were significant failings in responding to her correspondence, emails, and complaints. It apologised for this and offered her £150 compensation for the failing. It also suggested a meeting to ensure it was aware of all her concerns and agree an action plan.
19. The resident replied to the landlord’s stage 2 response on 10 July 2023. Although she said that she did not have any confidence in its offer of a face-to-face meeting, she requested the proposed timeline for when it would take place. There was no evidence that it responded to this request. She has told this Service that despite chasing it (text communication evidence supplied), this meeting has still not been arranged. The Ombudsman expects remedies offered to be actioned and, in a timely manner. It is not reasonable that it has not arranged the meeting it offered.
20. The landlord’s actions had amounted only to writing a general letter and telling the resident to keep a log of incidents, which she did. It has not shown that it did anything with them. It could have approached other neighbours and visited the site unannounced to monitor any noise or inappropriate behaviour. It could also have considered noise prevention measures such as sound insulation or door adjustments. It would have been appropriate to implement some of its early intervention methods. Some of these are risk assessments, mediation, warnings, or acceptable behaviour contracts. There was no indication that it had and, as a result, there was no ASB action plan to manage the problem going forward.
21. Reports from both the landlord and the resident indicate that matters have since escalated and have required the involvement of the police. Relations between her and the neighbour deteriorated, the stress of which had resulted in her postponing treatment for her PTSD with mental health services. Had it acted in accordance with its policy, it might have been able to prevent the situation escalating and the further detriment this has caused to the resident. 
22. The landlord’s offer of redress for failing to adhere to its ASB policy was unclear. It offered £600 for this, combined with its failure to adhere to another policy relating to a different issue. In the absence of a specified amount for the ASB, it was difficult to determine whether the offer was proportionate to the level of service failure or within the range the Ombudsman would recommend. It only referenced matters from May 2022 to its response in January 2023. It has not, however, accounted for the period between its responses (January and July 2023). This is when the ASB escalated, and it failed again to implement its policy. In not acknowledging failings in the further reports of ASB, it had not addressed the issue, apologised or offered any redress, which was a significant service failing by the landlord.
23.  Overall, the landlord’s handling of this matter was poor and has led to a finding of maladministration. It made efforts to put this matter right by providing an apology and compensation. However, having acknowledged its failure to implement its ASB policy, it missed 2 further opportunities to implement it at both stages of its complaint process. In not acknowledging the ongoing ASB, it had not recognised that further detriment to the resident had been significant. Furthermore, the landlord did not arrange the meeting that it offered to resolve its communication issues. It could not show that it had taken lessons from the complaint or made the improvements to its service to ensure the same mistakes would not happen again. 

Staff conduct

24. The resident expressed concern in her complaint to the landlord about missed appointments from her HO and that she felt her HO had a problem with her.
25. The landlord said in its stage 1 response it contacted the resident with a proposed appointment on 7 June 2022 to discuss various repairs that were outstanding. It said it did not receive confirmation back from her, so did not attend. It might have been helpful if it had tried contacting her again to ensure she had received the email, but it was not a service failing that it did not.
26. The landlord said the resident had previously expressed that she did not want the HO to visit her at home, as she did not like to meet people alone, which implied a reason for lesser contact. There was, however, no evidence provided to substantiate this claim, but she has not disputed this.
27. The resident could not make the landlord’s appointment for 27 November 2022 because of a G.P. appointment. It was unfortunate this had to be rearranged, but this was outside of its control. It appropriately offered another appointment for 17 November 2022.
28.  In light of the resident’s vulnerabilities, to make her feel more at ease, the landlord arranged for its welfare advisor to be present at the appointment. This was reasonable as they had been working with the resident for many years and she had built up a level of trust with them.
29.  Most of the communication failings were due to the HO not responding to the resident. This could have contributed to her feeling that the HO had a problem with her. When there has been a failure to respond, there is a risk residents could take it personally. The landlord recognised this and, as well as offering compensation, the HO personally apologised in its stage 1 response, which was appropriate.
30.  The resident was reluctant to have an annual home visit and asked for written communication rather than phone calls. She has since stated to us, this was to ensure things were accurately recorded, as she felt conversations with her HO were later retracted or denied. It is, however, a requirement of the landlord for a yearly visit and tenancy audit, and it is a requirement of her tenancy agreement to allow access. Although the HO was doing her job in persisting with the appointment and upholding the relevance of the tenancy conditions for access, this may well have contributed to her feelings of hostility from the HO.
31.  The landlord said it found no evidence that the HO had a personal grudge against the resident. In dealing with complaints about staff, it needs to show transparency and impartiality. To do this, it is appropriate to make clear how the complaint was investigated and the reasons for its decision. There were no records for this aspect of the complaint, and it did not explain its outcome. This was remiss, as it did not make clear to her how it came to its conclusion.
32.  The landlord said it could not establish when changes in appointments took place but apologised for any stress and inconvenience caused to her. It offered the resident £150 compensation. This was a proportionate offer and, combined with the apologies, was reasonable redress for this type of failing.
33.  Overall, the landlord had apologised, without evidence of failed appointments, and offered her compensation. While there were acknowledged problems with communication, nothing in the records or correspondence to the resident suggested any animosity from the HO. While the landlord could have better explained how it had concluded this aspect of the complaint, there were no findings of maladministration in its handling of appointments or the conduct of its staff.

Kitchen and shower

34. The resident raised concerns about the size and layout of the kitchen. She complained of a lack of work and storage space and could not fully open her drawers because they hit the edge of her cooker.
35. The landlord appropriately arranged for a surveyor to inspect the kitchen. The surveyor believed the resident’s kitchen was new, an adequate size for a small flat and “perfectly functioning”. His view was that the problem with the layout was the resident’s cooker, which was too deep for the space provided and was preventing the drawers opening. He checked to see if it could make any adjustments to the adjacent drawers or unit to create a better fit. This was reasonable but not possible. It suggested the solution was for her to change her cooker to a smaller one. Its actions to inspect and assess the kitchen were reasonable, and it was permitted to rely on the opinion of its qualified staff. It was not obliged to rearrange its kitchen to fit around the resident’s appliances.
36. However, the resident has since changed her cooker to a smaller one, and she is still experiencing the same problem. The landlord’s void standard states that it allows a space for a cooker of 50cm but only gives a width size. It has confirmed in a request for further information that it provides cooker spaces of both 50cm and 60cm depths. It would appear that freestanding gas cookers in the UK vary in width, but are generally 60cm in depth. If it has allocated a space for a freestanding gas cooker, it would be reasonable to expect that it meets the depth of a standard UK gas cooker.
37.  Although we have not found any failing, we recommend that the landlord revisits this matter. The resident has taken its advice, and the kitchen is currently not functioning properly. The drawers should open without obstruction and may need to be moved or changed. It should ensure the cooker space is the appropriate size for a standard appliance.
38. The HO reported that a corner kitchen unit door needed to be replaced. The landlord has repairing obligations under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (s11). There were no records to show the work was complete. The resident has advised us it has still not been replaced. This means it has not met its repairing obligation, which was a service failure by the landlord.
39. The resident has complained about a defective cooker hood in the kitchen. This apparently belonged to the previous resident. She told this Service it had never worked and is not connected. She has asked for its removal, but the landlord has not responded. It was silent on this aspect of the complaint in both of its responses.
40. The landlord’s void standard was not clear what happens in these circumstances. It is, however, usual practise for landlords to remove furniture and appliances left in the property by previous occupiers. If it did not supply the cooker hood and it is not an appliance it has committed to repairing or maintaining, it should have removed it.
41. The resident said that the property was advertised with a bath and shower. She pre-viewed the property when the contractors were completing the void works and there was a showerhead holder on the wall (photograph provided). When she moved into the property, this was gone, and no shower was available.
42. In her complaint, the resident said when she requested a shower for medical reasons, the landlord advised her to get an occupational therapist’s (OT) report She said there was a 6-month waiting list for an OT assessment. She expected the property to have a shower as it was advertised with one.
43. The landlord is required to provide washing/bathing facilities, which can be a bath or a shower. While there may well have been an error in its advertising in mistakenly offering both, it is not obliged to honour this.
44. Again, the landlord completely overlooked this aspect of the complaint in both of its complaint responses, which was a failing. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) requires that all aspects of a resident’s complaint should be responded to.
45. The landlord’s Aids and Adaptations Policy describes a minor adaptation as “a small relatively quick piece of work that would not normally exceed £1000”. Some examples included grab rails, handrails, provision of suitable taps, and handles. It confirms some minor adaptations can be carried out without a referral from an OT. It does not, however, state how or who determines if an OT assessment is necessary.
46. The resident just wanted the facility of a shower to wash under. She had been content to accept the property, believing it had a shower in the bath. This does not necessarily require major works and can be achieved sometimes by fitting a set of shower taps. The landlord was not wrong to refer the resident to an OT, as it is policy to do so. However, as it provides adaptations without the need for an OT, it would seem appropriate for it to have assessed to see if this was necessary prior to doing so.
47. In conclusion, some of the landlord’s actions and advice had adhered to its policies in relation to the resident’s complaints about the kitchen and shower. However, by not addressing all the issues raised in her complaint and not meeting its repairing obligations with the broken kitchen unit, we have made a finding of service failure.

Associated complaint

48. From December 2020, all member landlords were required to complete an annual self-assessment against the Code. Our duty to monitor against it became statutory in April 2024, so landlords are now obliged by law to follow its requirements.
49. The resident made a formal complaint on 6 December 2022. When she did not receive an acknowledgement or a response from the landlord, she submitted another complaint on 19 December 2022.
50. The Code requires that all complaints be acknowledged within 5 working days. Stage 1 complaints should be responded to within 10 working days from acknowledgement. Stage 2 complaints should be responded to within 20 working days from acknowledgement. An extension of an extra 10 days can be agreed with the resident at both stages. The landlord’s complaints policy was Code compliant in this respect.
51. The landlord’s complaints policy commits to acknowledging complaints within 2 working days. There was no evidence that it acknowledged the complaints at either stage. This was a failing, as it did not adhere to its policy or the Code.
52. The landlord’s policy commits to discussing the outcome a resident is seeking. It issued its stage 1 response on 17 January 2023, which was a 28-day response time. There was no evidence that it had discussed the complaint with the resident or agreed on an extension as its policy requires. Its response did not adhere to its policy and was not Code compliant.
53. The resident requested an escalation of her complaint on 17 January 2023. The landlord issued its response on 4 July 2024. This was a response time of 117 working days, which significantly exceeded the required response time. While it explained the reason for the delay during the process, it did not request or agree an extension with her as its policy and the Code requires.
54. The landlord acknowledged in its stage 2 response that it had not responded within the required timescales at either stage of the process. It apologised for this and offered the resident £150 compensation for the delay at stage 1 and £250 for the delay at stage 2. These were considered reasonable and proportionate offers for this type of failing.
55. However, a consistent failure to adhere to timescales throughout the process is something the landlord needs to address. This could be seen as it placing a lack of importance on the procedure, creating a risk of damage to the landlord tenant relationship and a lack of trust in the landlord’s complaints process.
56. The landlord offered in its stage 2 response compensation totalling £1450 (see paragraph 7). When it came to paying the resident, it paid her a significantly lower sum (exact figure is unclear approx. £850-£950) advising her she had miscalculated the total. If it had not intended to pay her this amount, it needs to ensure future calculations and compensation offers are set out clearer. We conclude £1450 was the amount offered and should have been paid to her.
57. Its overall handling of the resident’s complaint was poor. It did not consistently adhere to its policy or the Code. It made some efforts to put things right through an apology and financial redress, but this alone was not sufficient for the level of failings identified and its failure to resolve the substantive complaint. It did not demonstrate it had taken any lessons to make the service improvements to ensure the complaint handling failings would not be repeated. We have therefore concluded there was service failure in its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Determination

58. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB from the neighbour above.
59. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s
    1. Concerns about the layout of the kitchen and lack of a shower.
    2. Associated complaint.
60. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about staff conduct and missed appointments.

Orders

61. The Ombudsman orders that within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord provides evidence to this Service of compliance with the following orders:
    1. Provides a written apology to the resident for the failings identified in the report.
    2. Organises the meeting previously offered to discuss all outstanding issues, determine if a risk assessment is needed and agree a suitable action plan.
    3. Provides a date in accordance with its repair policy response times:
       1. To remove the defective cooker hood and make good.
       2. To replace the kitchen cabinet door.
    4. Pays the resident the difference between the sum of compensation it paid and the £1,450 it offered in its stage 2 response.
    5. Pays the resident the additional sum of £800 compensation. Broken down as follows:
       1. £300 for the distress and inconvenience caused by failing to implement its ASB policy between (17January 2023 and 4 July 2023).
       2. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the failing to repair the kitchen unit and removing the extractor fan.
       3. £400 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the failings identified in its complaint handling.

Recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord re-inspect the resident’s kitchen to find a solution to the issue of the drawers opening without obstruction.