Notting Hill Genesis (NHG) (202320229)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202320229

Notting Hill Genesis (NHG)

24 July 2024

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
   1. Requests for information about a housing application.
   2. Reports of required repairs in the property’s kitchen.

Background

2. The resident has been the assured tenant of the property, which is owned by the landlord, since 2010. She has a health condition which affects her mobility and, in particular, her ability to bend down and reach upwards. Her oldest son is an applicant for housing by the landlord and is represented by her as a joint complainant in this case.
3. The resident complained formally to the landlord on 24 October 2023 about 2 matters: the landlord not housing her son despite having undertaken to do so, and its failure to carry out repairs in the kitchen which she said required replacement. She also said that several housing officers had left without informing her and this had caused her delay and inconvenience.
4. In its response at stage 1, sent on 1 November 2023, the landlord said it sympathised with the resident’s concerns about the housing application but said the son should probably apply to the local council for housing because the landlord did not currently have any accommodation suitable for him. It said that it had recently inspected the kitchen and found it to be in good condition so it did not require repair. However, it understood that she was currently on the waiting list for a visit from an occupational therapist (OT) and advised her to contact the local council again if her condition had deteriorated as it might be able to speed up the assessment or move her to more suitable housing. It offered her £50 for failures in communication after housing officers had left the employ of the landlord.
5. The resident was not satisfied with this response and asked to escalate her complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaint procedure. In its stage 2 response of 30 November 2023, it apologised for the fact that she had been told her son would be housed by the end of 2023. However, it said there was a shortage of suitable properties so it could not say when a property would be available. It said it would update her regularly in future. Regarding the kitchen, it said that either the local council or the landlord would make any adaptations following an OT’s recommendations. It accepted that it had failed to inform her about the changes of housing officer and apologised and offered her £250 in compensation.
6. The resident was not satisfied with this response and asked this Service to investigate. She wants the landlord to provide housing for her son and repair the kitchen.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

7. In her original contact with this Service of October 2023, before she complained to the landlord, the resident raised several matters which she did not then raise in her subsequent complaint to the landlord. These included the condition of the bathroom, and problems with damp and mould. The Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme) states, at paragraph 42(a) that the Ombudsman may not normally consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure. For that reason, in this report, we are dealing only with the issues raised in her complaint to the landlord which are set out above.
8. The resident should raise these matters with the landlord in the first instance and could make a formal complaint directly to it. If she remains dissatisfied with its handling of the matter, then she could refer it to this Service, and it would be dealt with as a separate complaint with a new reference number.

Requests for information about a housing application

9. The landlord accepts that it told the resident that it expected to be able to house her son by the end of 2023. The landlord acknowledged that it had been unwise to promise a specific timescale, and therefore its apology was appropriate.
10. The landlord also apologised for its failures in communication with the resident which it appears occurred because of a succession of housing officers leaving its service. This meant that, every time a new housing officer took over the resident’s case, she had to inform them again about the housing application and her other concerns. In recognition of these failures, the landlord offered the resident a further £250 and told her it would be with her in time for Christmas 2023. It also said it would, from the date of the stage 2 response onwards, provide her with an update once every 2 weeks to explain the current state of her child’s application.
11. This was a reasonable response to the failures of communication which the landlord had identified because the compensation was a recognition of the impact that these failures had had on the resident up to that point and the bi-weekly contact would prevent these frustrations in future.
12. However, it is clear from the information provided to this Service that the landlord failed to live up to its commitments. It did not pay the compensation by Christmas 2023, and this Service has seen no evidence that it was paid at all. Further, it failed to provide bi-weekly updates, apart from on 1 occasion and, only after the resident asked for it. Then, another housing officer left the landlord’s employment, and she did not receive further contact from the landlord.
13. Overall, therefore, the landlord did not adequately remedy its failures in communication about the housing application because it failed to provide compensation in a timely manner or to live up to its commitment to communicate better about this issue. This Service has, therefore, ordered it to pay her a further sum in recognition of this poor service and ordered a service improvement to address these failures.

Reports of required repairs in the property’s kitchen

14. The tenancy agreement and the landlord’s responsive repairs policy say it will repair kitchen units when it is required. It says that it will bring homes to the Decent Homes Standard (DHS). The DHS says that properties, and the fixtures within, must be “in a reasonable state of repair”.
15. The resident had 2 concerns about the kitchen units. One was that they required repair. The other was that they were not suitable for her because her disability prevented her from reaching higher and lower units. At the time covered by this investigation, the resident was on a waiting list for an OT assessment to see whether she required any adaptations to enable her to use the kitchen safely. The landlord was responsible for the state of repair of the units while the local council was responsible for the OT appointment which would recommend any adaptations for disability.
16. The resident reported concerns about the condition of the kitchen cupboards to the landlord on 11 October 2023. The records indicate that it arranged for an inspection and found that the units were in “good condition” and so did not require repair. In her complaint to the landlord of 24 October 2023, she said that she needed the oven to be raised so she could avoid bending and for the cupboards to be lowered so she did not have to reach up. This complaint was, therefore, about the need for adaptations rather than repairs.
17. In its complaint response, the landlord stated that it would not replace the kitchen units as they did not require replacement and, if they required repair, it would repair them. It said that the resident should notify the council about adaptations she required if her condition had worsened as this might result in an earlier OT appointment. It offered her £50 as a gesture of good will. In its stage 2 response, it again said it would await the OT assessment report before making any adaptations.
18. Given that an OT was expected to make recommendations shortly, the landlord’s response was reasonable. It was a practical approach to wait until these recommendations were made rather than replacing a kitchen which might then, again require replacement if it did not meet the OT’s specifications.
19. The records show that the landlord arranged for a further inspection on 8 January 2024. This inspection found that some cupboards were worn and in need of repair. The landlord said it would ask the resident for her choice of colour and style. However, the records show that she refused the repairs saying she wanted a new kitchen, not repairs to the old one. As the landlord had assessed that it could replace the units and meet the DHS, it complied with its legal and regulatory duties in responding as it did.
20. The landlord subsequently told the resident that it would agree to supply a new kitchen in the 2025/26 financial year. Therefore, on the evidence, the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of repairs required in the kitchen was appropriate and in line with its regulatory and legal duties.

Determination

21. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s requests for updates on her child’s housing application.
22. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of required repairs in her kitchen.

Orders

23. Within 4 weeks of the date of this decision, the landlord must:
    1. Send the resident a letter apologising for the delay in paying compensation and the failure to update her on her son’s application.
    2. Pay the resident £300 comprising the £250 already offered and £50 in recognition of the failures set out above.