Notting Hill Genesis (NHG) (202313885)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202313885

Notting Hill Genesis (NHG)

26 February 2025

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example, whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice, or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman, and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to:
1. Water damage associated with a fire at the block.
2. A leak at the property.
3. The resident’s request for a transfer.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord which is a housing association. The tenancy commenced on 9 July 2007. The property is a 2 bedroom flat on the first floor in a block of other properties. The landlord has no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident.
On 24 April 2022 there was a fire at the block. The resident’s property suffered water damage following the fire brigade’s efforts to put out the fire. The resident was decanted while remedial works took place. During June 2022 the landlord arranged to move the contents of the property to storage. On 19 July she emailed the landlord to ask if she could claim on its insurance for damage caused to her possessions. The resident returned to the property on or around 21 July. However, she contacted the landlord to raise concerns about the standard of works that had been carried out.
Following the fire a hole was left in the balcony of a flat above which allowed water to penetrate the resident’s property and the one directly above her. A temporary tarpaulin was installed however, it subsequently failed leading to water ingress during October 2023.
The leak occurred on 23 October 2022 and the resident was decanted again. On 7 November the landlord approved the resident’s request for a permanent transfer to another property however, its subsequent offers were declined. During January 2023 the resident emailed the landlord to pursue compensation for items that were damaged. She also raised concerns about its management her temporary accommodation.
The resident returned to the property in July 2023. A ‘practical completion of works statement’ dated 18 March 2024 confirmed that “rectification of defective terrace roofs and associated works” had been carried out.
The landlord’s evidence showed that during the decant periods the landlord paid the resident a food allowance of £20 per adult per day and a laundry allowance, where appropriate, of £10 per adult per week.
On 28 April 2023 the resident’s MP wrote to the landlord on her behalf, as follows:
1. Since the fire in April 2022 the resident had been placed in at least 10 different accommodations, often hotels, with most of her belongings placed in storage.
2. This caused distress and inconvenience to the resident. She also incurred out of pocket expenses because she did not have a fridge or cooker.
3. The resident’s “housing instability” affected her income because she worked as a freelancer therefore having to be present for repairs, meetings and moving created a loss of earnings.
4. The property was “clearly not ready for habitation” when the resident moved back during October 2022 because it was not watertight.
5. The resident did not want to return to the property and they requested that the landlord consider her housing transfer request and review its response to the situation.
6. They also asked that it provide a response setting out its duty of care to residents, particularly those with vulnerabilities, in the event of an emergency such as fire or flood.
On 9 May 2023 the landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response, the main points were:
1. The fire occurred on Sunday 24 April 2022 and was dealt with by its call centre out of hours. The resident was decanted for the weekend.
2. The resident was “severely affected” by water from the fire brigade putting out the fire. It door knocked on Monday morning to make sure everyone was “safe and well.”
3. It acknowledged a neighbour had taken their own life a few hours before the fire. It had given residents advice and signposted them for professional support. The resident had received “consistent contact” following the fire. It therefore did not uphold the complaint about its response.
4. When it contacted the resident on the Monday morning it advised that it needed to establish a scope of works to make the property habitable. It did not know at that stage how long she would be out so the emergency accommodation was extended.
5. The resident requested to be moved closer to the property which it did. It secured accommodation and the resident was compensated £280 as per its policy. The resident was in a hotel for 13 days with breakfast included. She was then moved to a serviced apartment with a kitchen and washing machine and therefore compensation ceased.
6. Once the scope of works and timeline had been confirmed it passed this information to the resident. The availability of accommodation was out of its control and it could not provide a serviced apartment without knowing how long works would take. It confirmed the resident was moved 4 times between April 2022 to June 2022 and once between December 2023 to present. It apologised for the inconvenience.
7. The property was inspected by its surveyor and approved by its building safety team before the resident moved back. The property was not flagged as “uninhabitable.” Water damage was resolved and the flat restored to the “correct standards”.
8. The resident was offered a discretionary management transfer and had declined 2 properties. The resident was concerned about noise insulation in new build properties. It did not have the type of stock the resident was requesting.
On 20 June 2023 the resident emailed the landlord to request an independent review of her complaint, as follows:
1. The contents of the property were moved without her clear knowledge which was a data breach that caused “serious stress.” Some of her belongings had been damaged by the movers.
2. She was unhappy that the landlord had advised any compensation would be off set against her rent account. She said she was willing to clear some of her arrears and asked that any compensation was paid directly to her.
3. It had offered her a substandard property. She was concerned about sound insulation issues due to her previous experiences. She was also concerned that the property did not have an outside space which she needed.
4. She was “traumatised and highly impacted” by the leak on 23 October 2022. This was caused by tarpaulin sealant on the roof. The thought of moving back caused her a “considerable amount of stress and anxiety”.
5. She asked that it review its response to vulnerable residents in the event of an emergency. She asked that this include booking long term accommodation once the surveyor’s report was received. This was because she had to move to new accommodation when a booking was not made in time.
6. She had to throw away food from the fridge again and was not offered a subsistence payment when she left the property after the flood.
7. She asked it to consider compensation for damaged items including loss of food, distress and inconvenience.
8. She requested an independent review by someone outside of the team currently dealing with her case.
The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 17 July 2023, the main points were:
1. Its response was reviewed by a colleague not previously involved in complaint and it had taken their feedback into consideration. The complaint was not upheld.
2. It made “immediate contact” with the resident after the incident to find out how she was impacted and provide reassurance, help and support.
3. It arranged to decant the resident, move and store her belongings. It covered the costs of storage as a way of supporting her through a “challenging time.”
4. It had “consistently acknowledged” the resident’s difficulties and had “consistently communicated” the importance of seeking direct assistance from her doctor for any mental health or trauma related issues. It also signposted to other services.
5. It had made 3 “reasonable” property offers which the resident had declined. It acknowledged her specific preferences and had been “transparent” in its communication about the limited availability of housing. Given the scarcity of suitable properties she may need to consider a property that did not fulfill all her criteria.
6. It expected residents to have “suitable insurance” for personal belongings in the event of unfortunate incidents. It could not be held liable for loss or damage to personal and household items.
7. It advised that if she could evidence the small dent in her fridge was made by the movers it would see how it could assist. It had asked her to provide a date and time stamped photo from around the time of the fire but she had not. It said it would still consider this if she provided evidence.
8. Works at the property had been completed. As the resident had declined 3 offers of alternative accommodation she was required to return by 21 July. It would arrange for personal items to be returned to the property on 18 July.
9. Although the complaint was not upheld it offered £200 compensation for stress and inconvenience.
The resident contacted us on 17 July 2023 to request that we investigate her complaint. The complaint became one we can investigate on 5 June 2024.

Events post internal complaints process.

On 7 August 2023 the resident emailed the landlord to request that it review its position on compensation. It replied on 11 August to say it had increased its compensation to £250.
On 12 October 2023 the landlord visited the property to review the issues the resident had raised. Follow on works were requested including installation of new blinds, a new lounge radiator (rusted following the flood), re-painting and an application for a new cooker and fridge via its hardship fund.
On 11 December 2023 the landlord emailed the resident to confirm the amount of compensation paid to date amounted to £1078, comprised of:
1. £350 on 10 May 2023.
2. £200 on 11 July 2023.
3. £200 increased to £250 on 11 August 2023.
4. £150 and £328 (contribution to gas cooker) on 08 November 2023.
An internal email dated 10 June 2024 confirmed there were some repairs that remained outstanding or had not been carried out to the required standard. Works included rectification of water stains from a historical leak and “substandard” paint work and replacement of a new lounge radiator.

Assessment and findings

Landlord’s obligations, policies and procedures.

The landlord’s Allocations and Lettings Policy says it will only make one direct offer to residents in band A who are being considered for a management transfer.
Its Responsive Repairs Policy says that residents are responsible for insuring their own contents.
Its Emergency Decant Policy says that where residents are placed in hotel accommodation they will receive £20 per person to cover breakfast and dinner expenses.
Its Decant Policy says:
1. If a resident has been decanted to emergency accommodation, for example a hotel, and their property will not be habitable for longer than initially expected (10 working days), it will seek to relocate them into one of its void properties.
2. Depending on the situation it will offer specialist support to an affected resident by giving them access to its health and wellbeing provider.
Its Compensation and Goodwill Gestures Procedure says:
1. It will not pay compensation for loss of earnings.
2. It can make a discretionary payment where there had been inconvenience or distress caused to the resident.
3. If a resident is in arrears compensation would usually be paid directly into the rent account.
Its Complaints Policy says it will contact the resident within 2 working days of receiving a complaint and discuss the outcome they are seeking. It aims to respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.
The Local Officer will provide stage 1 complaint responses. Stage 2 complaints will be allocated to an independent manager and resident reviewer (if requested). It will consider the feedback before issuing a response.

Scope of the investigation.

In her stage 2 complaint of 20 June 2023 the resident advised she had slipped on the water that entered the property on 23 October. During a phone call with this Service on 24 February 2025 she confirmed she has been awarded damages for a personal injury claim in relation to this aspect of her complaint. In line with our approach set out in the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme we cannot consider matters that were the subject of court proceedings where a judgement on the merits was given. Therefore, this investigation has not assessed this point.

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to water damage associated with a fire at the block.

Following the fire at the block on 24 April 2022 the resident emailed the landlord on 29 April to confirm that she was satisfied with her accommodation. On 3 May the landlord emailed the resident to set out next steps. This included removing light fittings to allow them to dry out before reinstating after which remedial works would take place. The landlord’s completion report shows that the light fittings were disconnected on 7 May. The landlord’s response was appropriate in the circumstances.
The landlord provided a further update on 17 May 2022 to confirm that the property had dried out and that works would commence the following week. It also advised that due to the extended nature of the works it would need to arrange for the contents of the property to be removed and stored. It asked the resident to pack up smaller items into boxes which it would provide. It also asked her to confirm she had received her subsistence payment.
The landlord’s records show that it raised a bank transfer on 17 May 2022 which was completed on 25 May for the resident’s food and laundry allowance in line with its Emergency Decant Policy.
On 19 May 2022 the resident emailed the landlord to express concern that she might need to move again and that there was no washing machine in the property. By now the resident had been in temporary accommodation for over 10 working days. In accordance with its Decant Policy the landlord should have tried to relocate the resident to one of its void properties however, there is no evidence it did so. While there was no guarantee that it had a suitable property available, moving the resident to such accommodation might have helped her feel more settled.
The landlord replied on the same day to say an apartment was ready for the resident to move into. The booking was made in line with the estimated date for completion of works so she would not have to move again. While this was positive it was inappropriate that it was not planning and proactively communicating with the resident to reduce her distress and uncertainty.
On 27 May 2022 the landlord emailed the resident to remind her to attend the property to pack up her smaller items. It advised that the movers were attending on 6 and 7 June to remove and store all items in the property. The resident replied on 6 June to acknowledge the email and enquired about where items would be stored and how they would be protected. The landlord replied on 7 June and gave the address of the storage facility. It also advised that the movers would attend on 13 June.
On 16 June 2022 the resident emailed the landlord to say she was in “shock” and “really angry” to find that everything had been moved out without notification. She was particularly upset that her father’s ashes had been moved without her consent. The landlord replied on the same day to apologise for her distress. However, it directed her to its emails where it had asked her to pack smaller items ahead of the movers attending, had provided details of the storage unit and the date the move would happen. Its response was appropriate.
In its email to the resident of 16 June 2022 the landlord appropriately advised that works would commence that day. On 24 June it emailed the resident to update that it would visit the property that day and email her with photographs of works. The resident replied on the same day to raise queries about works being carried out. She also reminded the landlord that she was due to check out of her current accommodation the following Monday so if she needed to stay on it would need to book “straight away” to prevent her having to move again.
The landlord replied on 27 June 2022 to say its surveyor would inspect the following day when it would provide a more detailed update. It said it would extend the stay for a further 2 weeks. While this was positive, it is a further example of the landlord responding to contact from the resident rather than proactively managing the process and updating her accordingly.
The landlord provided a further update on 28 June 2022 when it set out next steps in relation to snagging and accommodation. It said the resident had until 18 July to move back to the property.
In a further email of 29 June 2022 the landlord offered the resident £20 compensation for the loss of food from the fridge of her current accommodation. It said it would pay the cost of a taxi to new accommodation she had to move to. It is unclear why she had to move which is a record keeping failure. However, given its assurances in its email of 19 May it was particularly inappropriate that she had to move again.
The resident emailed the landlord on 30 June 2022 to say she was “upset” at having to move again. She felt the landlord’s failure to plan was responsible for her having to move because it had not been possible to extend her current accommodation.
In her email to the landlord of 8 July 2022 the resident said there was lots of snagging still to be done and damage had been caused to her front door. In its email to the resident of 11 July the landlord confirmed that it would carry out snagging works with her in situ. On 12 July the resident emailed the landlord to ask when the snagging would be finished and when works including replacing lights and sockets be completed.
In its response of the same day the landlord confirmed it had visited the property on 8 July 2022 and was satisfied with the works that had been carried out. During their ongoing email exchange the resident asked the landlord to inspect so she could show what the issues where. Given the distress caused to the resident by the situation thus far this was a reasonable request. However, there is no evidence that the landlord acted on her suggestion.
The email exchange between the resident and landlord continued throughout July 2022. The resident provided photographs at the landlord’s request. In her email to the landlord on 13 July the resident expressed her frustration with the process. In a telephone call with us on 24 February 2025 the resident said the number of emails she had to send compounded the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused.
In her email to the landlord of 19 July 2022 the resident asked it to compensate her for damage caused to her fridge by the mover, her blinds and her cooker. In its reply of the same day the landlord advised that residents were expected to have contents insurance. It was therefore not liable for personal and household items but that it would review any evidence relating to damage to the fridge. The landlord’s response was reasonable and in line with its Responsive Repairs Policy.
In a further email exchange on the same day the resident again asked the landlord to inspect the property with her so she could discuss the issues, as this was the “easiest” way to resolve the situation. Once again, the landlord failed to offer to do so. It said it had gone “above and beyond” to support the resident and the property was in a better condition than it had been previously. The landlord’s response was inappropriate. It demonstrated a lack of empathy and insight into the challenges she had encountered.
On 8 August 2022 the resident sent a detailed email to the landlord to set out her concerns relating to remedial works including the standard of paintwork, a faulty bedroom light and compensation for damaged items.
On 19 August 2022 the landlord emailed the resident to reiterate that it would not pay compensation for damaged belongings. It confirmed there were some repairs which were outstanding. It asked the resident to make contact if they had still not been done so it could chase. Its response lacked a customer centric approach. This is because it would have been reasonable for it to have checked its repairs system or contacted its contractor to obtain this information itself. Putting the onus on the resident compounded the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.
It is noted that the internal email dated 10 June 2024 referred to patchy paintwork and other works resulting from water damage. However, it is not clear whether they relate to water damage following the fire or to the leak which occurred in October 2022 set out below. It is therefore unclear when all the snagging works were completed which is a record keeping failure.
The landlord’s failures amount to maladministration because they had an adverse effect on the resident. The landlord has been ordered to pay the resident £300 compensation which is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance where there was no permanent impact.

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to a leak at the property.

On 7 September 2022 the resident emailed the landlord to report that she could hear rain coming through the ceiling. She said that following the original leak the boards in the ceiling were not replaced, they were just painted over. She was concerned they might collapse.
The landlord’s completion sheet shows it inspected the property on 11 September 2022. The job was updated on 13 September to say that an appointment had been made to attend on 23 September with a ropes team to investigate further. It says a report, not seen by this investigation, was uploaded on 3 October.
On 20 October 2022 the resident called the landlord to report that the heat detector and kitchen light had suffered water damage and needed to be isolated. An internal email dated 22 October confirmed the landlord had inspected the property and identified that the leak was coming from the property above. It said the property was empty and it needed to gain entry to inspect. There is no evidence that it took steps to gain access.
On Sunday 23 October 2022 the resident emailed the landlord to report that the property had flooded following a build up of rain coming from the “unsafe structure” on the roof. She was unhappy that the landlord had allowed her to return to the property when it was “not structurally sound” and the affected parts “just painted over.”
An internal email, also of 23 October, confirmed that the leak was coming from the roof and the ceiling in the property above had fallen in. Roofers were required to attend to repair the roof “as soon as possible because of health and safety reasons.”
A further internal email, dated 24 October 2022, noted the landlord’s concerns about carrying out repair work in the property given the issues in the property above were the reason for the flood. It confirmed that “any remedial measures that were put in place to minimise impact have not worked as they should.” It asked the building safety team to provide further advice so it could be confident that further works would solve the issues with the property.
An internal email dated 21 June 2024 acknowledged that a temporary tarpaulin was installed however, it subsequently failed leading to water ingress and damage to the resident’s property. A more permanent cover was installed to seal the hole.
The evidence shows that the landlord appropriately contacted the resident during the morning on Monday 24 October 2022 and that she had been provided with temporary accommodation.
On 8 November 2022 the resident emailed the landlord and provided evidence of costs of breakfast and laundry. She enquired about a daily food allowance and advised the hotel was due to close on 24 November for refurbishment. The landlord replied on the same day to confirm that it had paid for breakfast. While this was positive it failed to confirm that it would pay the daily food allowance of £20 per person per day in line with its Emergency Decant Policy. This was inappropriate because it caused uncertainty and compounded the resident’s distress.
The landlord sent a further email to the resident on 14 November 2022 to confirm that given the hotel closure it would look for an apartment for the resident. It provided a further update by email on 16 November to say an apartment had been identified for her to move into from 19 November. This would give her the weekend to move her belongings over before checking out of the hotel.
On 19 December 2022 the resident emailed the landlord to ask what would happen when the current booking expired on 6 January. The landlord replied on the same day to confirm the booking had been extended until the end of January to minimise the distress caused.
By now, the resident had been in temporary accommodation for over 10 working days. Therefore, in line with its Decant Policy the landlord should have tried to move the resident to a suitable void property however, there is no evidence that it did so. Had it been able to do so it may have reduced the level of uncertainty for the resident.
On 3 January 2023 the resident emailed the landlord to request compensation for damage caused to her furniture, fridge and contents of her fridge. She also asked that it compensate her for the distress and inconvenience, particularly as she felt the leak could have been prevented. She once again asked the landlord to consider paying a daily food allowance.
On 10 January 2023 the landlord emailed the resident to request that she provide a copy of her bank statement to verify cost of contents of fridge within 7 days so it could consider her claim. It confirmed it would not compensate the resident for the other items which should be covered by contents insurance. Considering that the resident did not have contents insurance and the cause of the leak, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have signposted the resident to make a claim on its liability insurance. That it did not do so was a failure.
It also set out the details of the subsistence allowance it would pay while the resident was in the hotel. Its response was in line with its Emergency Decant Policy. While this was positive it came late in the process and only after the resident chased on 2 occasions.
Furthermore, it confirmed this would be paid into the resident’s rent account. This was inappropriate because this was not compensation for failure of service but a subsistence allowance to settle out of pocket expenses. The landlord should consider the impact that offsetting all compensation against rent arears may have on a resident.
It offered the resident £250 for distress and inconvenience caused by having to move out a second time. It said this would be paid into the resident’s rent account which was in line with its Compensation and Goodwill Gestures Procedure. However, it said that the offer was a “full and final settlement.” This was inappropriate because it implied that if accepted it would prevent the resident from escalating the matter for example, through the internal complaints process. The landlord should review the use of such wording when making offers of compensation.
In its email to the resident of 31 January 2023 the landlord confirmed it had provided a timeline, not seen by this investigation, from return of the report to the starting of the week over a 2 to 3 week period. The resident emailed the landlord on 6 February to express concern over loss of earnings to attend appointments. The landlord replied on the same day to say it would not pay for loss of earnings. This was in line with its Compensation and Goodwill Gestures Procedure. It proposed that a key safe be installed meaning the resident would not be required to be present for the works to take place. Its response was appropriate in the circumstances.
The resident’s stage 1 complaint of 28 April 2023 raised concerns about her return to a property which had not been watertight. It also set out the distress, inconvenience and financial loss caused to the resident. It also set out the resident’s dissatisfaction about the support that was offered.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response dated 9 May 2023 confirmed that the landlord’s building safety team was satisfied with the condition of the property prior to the resident’s return in October 2022. It appropriately set out the subsistence payments made for food and laundry expenses however, it failed to address the resident’s distress and inconvenience. This demonstrated a lack of empathy and understanding of the cumulative impact of the 2 significant incidents on the resident.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response of 17 July 2023 set out the ways in which it had supported the resident in the immediate aftermath of the flood. Its response was appropriate in the circumstances. It confirmed that works had been completed and the resident was required to return by 21 July 2023.
Although the complaint was not upheld it offered the resident £200 compensation for distress and inconvenience. Following a review of compensation the landlord emailed the resident on 11 August 2023 to confirm it had increased this to £250. It is unclear whether this was in addition to the £250 offered on 1 January. However, it is reasonable to conclude the landlord offered a minimum of £250 compensation.
On 11 December 2023 the landlord emailed the resident to confirm how much compensation had been paid to date. It is unclear what the payments made on 10 May, 11 July and £150 on 8 November 2023 were for. During her phone call with us on 24 February 2025 the resident said she has never received any compensation from the landlord. It unclear if this includes compensation paid to her rent account. The landlord’s record keeping failures have made it difficult for us to calculate how much compensation, if any, had been paid and as such it has not been possible to consider it as part of this determination.
The evidence shows that some of the remedial works remained outstanding as late as June 2024 which was over 18 months after the leak occurred. The reasons for the delay are unclear and therefore it was unreasonable.
The landlord’s failures amount to maladministration because they had an adverse effect on the resident. The landlord has been ordered to pay the resident £550 which is consistent with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance where there was no permanent impact. The landlord may deduct the £250 it offered on 11 August and £150 it offered on 8 November 2023 if this has already been paid.

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a transfer.

During her email to the landlord on 24 June 2022 the resident asked to complete a transfer form because she wanted to “consider her options.” When the landlord replied on 27 June it provided a transfer form. In an email to the landlord on 8 July the resident said she was not sure she would return to the property and asked to move elsewhere. The transfer application was approved on 7 November.
Having been invited to view a video of a potential property the resident emailed the landlord on 8 November 2022 to say she could not accept a property in between others. This was because she had experienced sound insulation issues in properties in that area. She also said that following the fire she would need to be housed in a property on a “sufficient” level to be able to escape in an emergency. The landlord replied on 14 November to say it would consider other options.
In its email to the resident on 10 January 2023 the landlord confirmed that a property it had offered was the only one which met the resident’s needs and her areas of choice. It advised she was being offered a band A management transfer due to exceptional circumstances and that she would only be made one offer. This was appropriate and in line with its Allocations and Lettings Policy. It attached a video of a direct offer property and asked the resident to respond by 11 January.
The resident emailed the landlord on 16 January 2023 to confirm that she would view the property. However, because it was past the deadline the property had already been allocated. The landlord appropriately used its discretion and agreed to look for another direct offer.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response dated 9 May 2023 confirmed that the resident was offered 2 properties which were declined. It gave an appropriate explanation as to why it could not offer the type of property the resident had requested.
In her email to the landlord of 20 June 2023 the resident said the last property she was offered was unsuitable because it did not have an outside space which she needed. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response of 17 July confirmed the resident had declined 3 direct offers and therefore she was required to return to the property on 18 July.
We acknowledge the reasons for the resident’s request to move and her property preferences. However, as set out by the landlord the management transfer was being offered due to exceptional circumstances outside of the normal transfer process. Social landlords have limited stock and the landlord could not offer a property it did not have. The evidence shows that the landlord tried to accommodate the resident’s wishes. Because it could not it used its discretion to make more than 1 direct offer of accommodation to try to reach a resolution. Therefore it was reasonable that the landlord brought the process to a close and requested the resident return to the property.

The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Having sought assistance the resident’s MP made a stage 1 complaint on her behalf on 28 April 2023. The landlord’s local officer provided its response on 9 May which was appropriately within its timescales. However, it did not clearly set out that it was a stage 1 complaint response which was a shortcoming.
The MP’s stage 1 complaint was addressed to the Chief Executive Officer. In the MP’s response to the landlord of 17 May 2023 they asked for a response to be provided by a senior manager.
The Code says that a complaint submitted via a third party or representative must still be handled in line with the landlord’s Complaints Policy. Therefore, the landlord’s decision that a Local Officer should provide its response was in line with its policy.
On 20 June 2023 the resident emailed the landlord to request that it escalate her complaint to stage 2 of the process. The landlord’s Housing Operations Manager provided its response on 17 July which was appropriately within its timescales.
The evidence shows that the landlord sought and logged feedback from an independent reviewer in line with its Complaints Policy. The reviewer confirmed that they had not identified any failure to provide a service.
However, the stage 2 response was issued by its Housing Operations Manager who was not an independent and in this respect it failed to adhere to its Complaints Policy. This meant the resident could not be confident that an objective and independent review had been carried out which was inappropriate.
The Code requires landlords to address all points raised in the complaint. The resident’s stage 1 complaint of 28 April 2023 specifically asked the landlord to provide a response in relation to vulnerable residents. However, it failed to do so. In a further email to the landlord of 17 May the MP asked again for a response. It is noted that the landlord emailed the MP on 30 May to expand on this point. It is unclear if this information was also shared with the resident.
The resident repeated the same request in her email to the landlord of 20 June 2023. However, the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response also failed to set out its general approach. During a phone call to this Service on 24 February 2025 the resident said the landlord failed to understand what was being asked of it and therefore failed to provide a response.
This could have been avoided if the landlord had contacted the resident to discuss her complaint as set out in its Complaints Policy. The MP making the complaint on her behalf should not have prevented this because the Code requires landlords to follow their policy in such circumstances.
The landlord’s failures amount to service failure because they were minor failures of short duration. Furthermore, they may not have affected the overall outcome for the resident. The landlord has been ordered to pay the resident £75 which is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to water damage associated with a fire at the block.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to a leak at the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a transfer.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of the determination the landlord is ordered to:
1. Write to the resident to apologise for the failures identified in this report.
2. Consider whether it would be reasonable to compensate the resident for damage caused to her belongings by the flood and if not, whether there is any merit in supporting the resident to make a claim to its liability insurer should she wish to do so. The landlord should write to the resident to confirm its position.
3. Write to the resident to confirm whether any repairs are outstanding and if so provide a schedule with a timeline for completion.
4. Pay the resident £925 compensation comprised of:
  1. £300 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its failures in its response to water damage associated with a fire at the property.
  2. £550caused for the distress and inconvenience caused by its failures in response to a leak at the property.
  3. £75 for the inconvenience caused by its complaint handling failures.
The landlord should provide evidence of the above orders to the Ombudsman also within 4 weeks.
Within 6 weeks of the date of the determination the landlord is ordered to carry out a review of its failings to identify what went wrong and what it will do differently. A copy of the review should be provided to the resident and the Ombudsman, also within 6 weeks.

Recommendation

The landlord should consider its blanket approach to offsetting compensation for out of pocket expenses against the rent account where there are arrears.
It should also review use of the wording “full and final settlement” when making offers of compensation for failures of service.