Notting Hill Genesis (NHG) (202337733)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202337733

Notting Hill Genesis (NHG)

23 May 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 handling of a request for rehousing.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s:
1. Complaint handling.
2. Record keeping.

Background

The resident holds an assured tenancy. The property is a 3-bedroom maisonette on the second floor of a block of flats. The resident accesses the property via stairs and there are no available lifts.
The resident made a complaint to the landlord about her housing circumstances. She felt the property was not suitable as she needed a wheelchair accessible property. She also felt her housing officer had poorly communicated with her about her request to transfer to another property.
The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 14 March 2024. It said:
1. She was in Band D on the housing register (which was the lowest band).
2. She had provided medical evidence to support her need to move in October 2023. It apologised for its poor communication and the delay in processing her transfer request.
3. It had now sent the information to its independent medical assessor. It would receive the outcome in around 2 weeks, and it would then confirm her banding as soon as possible afterwards.
4. It recommended she requested an occupational therapist assessment through the local authority. It said it could then arrange any aids and adaptations needed to her current property.
5. It offered £450 compensation. This consisted of:
  1. £400 for its poor communication and the distress and inconvenience caused by the delay in processing her transfer request.
  2. £50 for its delayed response.
The resident contacted us for assistance with escalating her complaint. On 21 August 2024, we informed the landlord that the resident remained unhappy with its response. In particular, she was unhappy with its poor communication about her transfer application and that it had not responded to her. She said she struggled with her mobility and asked it to offer her a transfer to a ground floor property as a priority.
On 4 October 2024, the landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response to the resident. It apologised for its poor communication. It said its independent medical assessor provided its report in May 2024. It said it found the evidence provided did not meet the threshold for a move based on a medical priority. It said it would reassess this if she provided an occupational therapist assessment. It also recommended that she requested this assessment from the local authority so it could arrange any aids and adaptations required to her current home. It offered her a further £100 compensation for its service failure and for its “lack of response.”
The resident referred her complaint to us as she remained unhappy with the landlord’s response. She said she needed to move to a ground floor property. The complaint became one we could investigate on 4 December 2024.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation.

The resident asked us to order the landlord to offer rehousing to her. While the reasons for the resident’s request are understood, it is beyond our remit to do so. We also cannot ask the landlord to prioritise her over others that need rehousing and who may be in a similar or greater need. Our role is to determine whether the landlord acted in line with its legal obligations, policies and procedures, and best practice.

The landlord’s handling of a request for rehousing.

For context, in March 2019, the resident submitted a transfer application to the landlord. She asked it to rehouse her to a ground floor property without stairs because of her poor mobility. She said she had arthritis in her knees and hip and had lower back pain. It is unclear whether the application was successful, and whether it was active when the resident asked for rehousing again in 2023.
The landlord’s transfer procedure explains how it will respond when receiving a request for a transfer. A housing officer will contact the resident to ask them to return a transfer application form. It will process this “as soon as possible.” If a resident discloses any medical conditions impacting their housing needs, it will ask them to complete a medical self-assessment form. It will then send this information to its independent medical advisor within 48 hours. It will update the resident of the outcome of the assessment within 2 weeks.
On 24 February 2023, the landlord sent the resident a medical self-assessment form and asked her to complete and return it with medical evidence. It is unclear what prompted this. The landlord has not provided us with any records of any conversations or events leading up to sending the forms to the resident. Nevertheless, by sending the forms to the resident, it acted in line with its transfer procedure.
The resident provided the relevant information to the landlord on 27 February 2023. In line with its procedure, the landlord should have sent this information to its independent medical advisor within 48 hours. However, there is no evidence to show whether it did so. Additionally, there is no evidence that it responded to the resident about the information received. This was not appropriate. Its lack of communication would have understandably created uncertainty as to whether it had received her request and how it would process this.
On 26 September 2023, the resident asked the landlord to resend the forms to her. She said this was because it had told her it had not received the forms sent previously. The landlord has not provided us with any evidence showing it had told her this. This is a concern as if it had done so, it would be reasonable to expect that it had documented this. The landlord re–sent the forms to her on the following day, which was appropriate to reflect the urgency of the matter.
On 13 October 2023, the resident confirmed to the landlord that she had sent the forms to it on 6 October 2023. She said she had also sent this directly to her housing officer too. On 16 October 2023, the landlord confirmed it had received her transfer form. However, it said she needed to pay her rent arrears before it could proceed with her request.
The landlord’s transfer procedure states that residents cannot register for a transfer until any rent arrears amount to less than 1 week’s rent. However, the evidence provided from 16 October 2023 shows the resident was in credit on her rent account. In the absence of any other records provided, it is unclear why the landlord took this position and gave this advice to the resident.
There is no evidence provided to show what happened after the landlord told the resident about the rent arrears issue. However, on 16 November 2023, the landlord sent the resident’s medical information to its independent medical assessor. The landlord’s procedure states it will send the information to its independent medical assessor within 48 hours. Due to the lack of records provided, it is unclear whether the landlord acted appropriately in a timely manner in doing so after resolving the rent arrears issue.
Within the landlord’s complaint responses, it acknowledged its delay in processing the resident’s transfer request. It said the resident’s housing officer was on leave when she sent the information and that they should have responded upon their return. It is unclear how long the housing officer was on leave for and as such, how long the delay was. It was appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge its failure, nonetheless. While landlords cannot predict unexpected staff absences, it should have systems in place to be able to maintain communication with residents. This understandably added further delays in resolving the issues.
In the landlord’s initial response, it said the resident was in Band D on the housing register. It said it would review her banding after receiving the outcome from its independent medical assessor, which would take around 2 weeks to complete. It is confusing why it said this, when we have seen evidence of the assessment sent to its independent medical assessor 4 months earlier in November 2023. It is unclear if it had requested a new assessment or if it was still waiting to hear back from the referral sent previously. It would have been reasonable for it to explain the situation clearly to the resident and what action it had taken to consider her request. Especially given her concerns with its handling of her request for rehousing. The landlord’s record keeping has therefore hindered our ability to assess whether it acted appropriately.
The landlord received the report from its independent medical assessor on 3 May 2024. It did not recommend any medical priority for the resident’s transfer application. Part of the resident’s complaint was that the landlord did not acknowledge her GP letter dated 22 January 2024. We have seen evidence that the independent medical assessor considered this GP letter during its assessment. However, there is no evidence to show that the landlord told the resident it had received the medical letter and sent this to its independent medical assessor to review. By not doing so, it understandably caused her distress by believing it had not considered this.
Given the resident’s circumstances of requesting a transfer due to her health conditions, the landlord’s lack of communication throughout this process was not appropriate. There is no evidence provided to show that the landlord informed the resident of this outcome until its final response in October 2024. This was over 5 months after it received the outcome from its independent medical assessor, despite promising in its initial response to provide the outcome “as soon as possible” to her. The outcome did not ultimately increase her priority for rehousing. However, the significant delay in awaiting the outcome understandably caused distress to her during this time.
The landlord advised the resident to seek an occupational therapy assessment through the local authority. It said it could then consider any aids and adaptations needed to her current property. This advice was correct, as it could then ensure it could adapt her current property, or consider her needs for a future property, if needed. It is, however, a shortcoming that the landlord did not consider offering her further support in requesting the occupational therapy assessment.
It is also unclear whether the landlord provided the resident with advice about joining the local authority’s housing register. We therefore cannot conclude that it did so. It would have been reasonable for it to have given such advice to provide her with another potential route for rehousing.
The landlord offered the resident a total of £500 compensation for its poor communication and the delay in processing her transfer request. We have considered the £100 compensation offered in its final response within this total amount. This is because the landlord did not clearly clarify what the £100 was for, as it said it was for its “lack of response.” As such, we have deemed this as a lack of response to the transfer, and not its complaint response. The landlord should ensure that its communication around any compensation offered is clear.
The £400 compensation initially offered was appropriate to reflect the level of distress and inconvenience experienced at the time of the initial response. However, there is no evidence that the landlord improved its communication after this. Instead, it waited a further 5 months to update her of the outcome of the independent medical assessment. Additionally, it has failed to evidence whether it offered her support in requesting an occupational therapist assessment and/or joining the local authority’s housing register.
Considering the above, the £500 compensation offered by the landlord was not proportionate to the failings identified. It was appropriate for it to make an offer of redress; however, it did not consider the full impact caused to the resident by its failings. As such, it should pay the resident a further £200 compensation. This is to reflect the level of distress and inconvenience caused by the failings identified within this investigation. This is an appropriate award in line with our remedies guidance for failings which had an adverse impact on the resident. The landlord should also contact the resident and offer her support as outlined in the orders below.

The landlord’s complaint handling.

Our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) outlines how landlords must respond to complaints. It must respond at stage 1 within 10 working days of the date of acknowledging and logging the complaint. Landlords must also respond to escalation requests at stage 2 within 20 working days. The landlord’s complaints policy aligns with the Code.
The landlord was unable to provide us with a copy of the resident’s initial complaint. We therefore cannot assess whether the landlord responded appropriately within the timescales set out in its policy and the Code. We also cannot assess whether it provided a full response to all the concerns raised by the resident. It is unclear whether the landlord no longer has a copy of the correspondence, or if it simply did not provide this for our investigation. However, that this information was not readily available for our consideration is a record keeping failure.
The resident provided us with a copy of an acknowledgement dated 23 January 2024 from the landlord about her complaint. While we do not know the date of the complaint, we note the landlord was aware of the complaint by this date. Due to its lack of response, the resident experienced time and trouble in asking us for assistance.
On 12 March 2024, we asked the landlord to provide its response within 5 working days. It later did so on 14 March 2024. The resident should not have to contact the landlord again, or us, to receive a response to her complaint. Therefore, its handling of her complaint was not appropriate.
The resident contacted us as she was unhappy with the landlord’s response and wished to escalate her complaint. We wrote to the landlord on 21 August 2024 and asked it to provide its final response within 25 working days, by 26 September 2024. We have not seen evidence of a complaint escalation made by the resident to the landlord prior to this. Therefore, we have not found any failing in the complaint escalation process itself.
The landlord did not provide its final response within this time. On 27 September 2024, the landlord apologised and told us that it would respond by 4 October 2024. It said it would address its complaint handling within its final response to the resident. However, while it did later respond on this date, it did not acknowledge or refer to its delayed response. Additionally, it is unclear whether it updated the resident of its delayed response during this time. As such, the resident understandably experienced further time and trouble in awaiting its response. This was not appropriate.
The landlord offered £50 compensation to the resident for its delayed response at stage 1. Due to its poor record keeping, we cannot assess whether this amount was proportionate to the level of distress and inconvenience caused. It did not offer any compensation for its delayed response at stage 2. Considering this, the landlord should pay the resident a further £125 compensation. This is to reflect the time and trouble caused by its complaint handling failings. This is an appropriate award in line with our remedies guidance for failings which impacted the resident.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of a request for rehousing.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s record keeping.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, we order the landlord to:
1. Apologise to the resident in writing regarding the failures identified within this investigation.
2. Pay the resident the £550 compensation offered within its complaint responses if it has not already done so.
3. Pay the resident a further £325 compensation. It should pay this directly to the resident and not her rent account. This consists of:
  1. £200 for its handling of a request for rehousing.
  2. £125 for its complaint handling.
4. Contact the resident and offer reasonable support to her in contacting the local authority. This is to offer support for both requesting an occupational therapy assessment and to help join the housing register if she wishes to.
5. Provide refresher training to its staff responding to transfer requests. This should focus on the importance of regular communication and meeting the timescales set out in its transfer procedure. It should also include the importance of record keeping, including any communication with the resident and any actions taken. It should provide evidence of the training through a copy of the information circulated to the relevant staff. If it delivers the training through a meeting, it should provide us with a copy of the meeting minutes to show what it discussed.
The landlord should reply to us with evidence of compliance with the orders within the timescale set out above.

Recommendations

The landlord should consider providing refresher training to its staff overseeing complaints. This should focus on the importance of good record keeping.
The landlord should consider ensuring that its communication around any compensation offered is clear.