Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

Notting Hill Genesis (NHG) (202337760)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202337760

Notting Hill Genesis (NHG)

29 November 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:
    1. Communication regarding an event held in a neighbour’s flat.
    2. Handling of the resident’s query about the neighbour’s flooring.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured shorthold tenant of the landlord, which is a housing association. She lives in a 2-bedroom, second floor flat. The resident told the Ombudsman she and the neighbour upstairs have both lived there since 2014. The resident disclosed a health condition to the Ombudsman, but the landlord has no vulnerabilities recorded for her.
  2. The resident contacted the landlord on Friday 4 November 2022. At 9:45pm that night she heard loud banging from the neighbour’s flat so visited the neighbour. The neighbour said they had asked the landlord to tell the resident they were planning an event that evening. In the email the resident asked the landlord why it did not pass this message on. She also asked the landlord to check the neighbour’s flooring as she could hear increased noise. The resident told the Ombudsman she noticed an increase in the sound transfer between the flats during 2022.
  3. The landlord replied on Monday 7 November 2022, it apologised for not telling the resident. It agreed to visit the block to check the neighbour’s flooring. The following day the resident made a formal stage 1 complaint. This was that the landlord did not pass this message on and asked it to check the neighbour’s flooring.
  4. The landlord responded to the stage 1 complaint on 15 November 2022. It acknowledged by not passing the message on it left the resident in an awkward position. The landlord recognised it could have prevented this noting it apologised on 7 November 2022. The landlord said if someone plans an event, it is their responsibility to notify others. However, the landlord accepted it did not make this clear to the neighbour. The neighbour would have assumed it had passed the message on to the resident. The landlord would contact the neighbour to confirm the resident did not know about the event. The landlord said it was an unfortunate error and it apologised for any upset caused to the resident and the neighbour.
  5. As the landlord had not mentioned the neighbour’s flooring, the resident queried this. The following day, 16 November 2022 the landlord apologised for missing this complaint point. It said it had recently visited the neighbour and there was carpet throughout. The resident queried the date of the visit, and the landlord replied it was 10 August 2022. The resident asked to escalate the complaint as the date was before the resident requested a visit. Therefore, the landlord had not checked the flooring as it agreed on 7 November 2022.
  6. The landlord provided its final resolution letter on 23 December 2022. It was satisfied with its previous assessment into the handling of the neighbour’s event. It also offered the resident and the neighbour mediation. The landlord said the resident saw grey wood effect lino in the communal area on 21 October 2022 and asked it who this belonged to and whether they had permission to change their flooring. The landlord said it was not able to give this information due to data protection.
  7. The landlord recognised the resident said on 7 November 2022 she wanted the neighbour’s flooring checking due to increased noise. However, there had been miscommunication regarding this when the landlord said it last visited in August. The landlord said it needed to ensure it got things like this right in future. The landlord had scheduled a visit to the neighbour’s property on 2 December 2022 but rescheduled this to 6 January 2023. The landlord said it would update the resident and take the lead on any next steps. It offered the resident £50 for the delay in issuing the final resolution letter.
  8. In evidence provided to the Ombudsman the landlord stated it completed a home visit on 25 November 2022 and the neighbour had carpet in the property.
  9. The resident remains dissatisfied. She does not want to hear noise from the neighbour and says returning the neighbour’s flooring to carpet would resolve this.

Assessment and findings

  1. When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its Dispute Resolution Principles. These are high level good practice guidance developed from the Ombudsman’s experience of resolving disputes, for use by everyone involved in the complaints process. There are only 3 principles driving effective dispute resolution:
  1. Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes.
  2. Put things right.
  3. Learn from outcomes.
  1. The Ombudsman must first consider whether a failing on the part of the landlord occurred, and if so, whether this led to any adverse effect or detriment to the resident. If it is found that a failing did lead to an adverse effect, the investigation will then consider whether the landlord has taken enough action to ‘put things right’ and ‘learn from outcomes’.

Scope of investigation

  1. In her complaint to the Ombudsman, the resident raised additional concerns regarding the landlord’s communication of the noise nuisance complaint. This was following the completion of its complaints process in relation to the event in the neighbour’s flat and their flooring. In the interest of fairness, the scope of this investigation is limited to the topics raised during the resident’s formal complaint. This is because the landlord needs a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction with its actions prior to the involvement of the Ombudsman. This is in accordance with paragraph 42.a. of the Scheme, which states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints made prior to exhausting the landlord’s complaints procedure. New issues can be addressed directly with the landlord and progressed as a new formal complaint if required.

Event in neighbour’s flat

  1. The Ombudsman would not expect a landlord to have a policy detailing how it should respond when asked to pass messages between neighbours. However, the landlord’s domestic noise and neighbourhood disputes policy sets out its general position. This says when it receives a complaint it would advise residents to politely discuss the issue directly with their neighbour. The Ombudsman would expect the landlord to fulfil anything it committed to do.
  2. Once the resident alerted the landlord that it did not pass the neighbour’s message on to her, it apologised for this. The landlord reiterated the apology through later correspondence and in the stage 1 response. The final resolution reiterated the stage 1 findings.
  3. In its stage 1 response, the landlord said that the staff member who spoke with the neighbour was new to the role. The landlord did not make it clear it expected the neighbour to inform others of the event. Therefore, the neighbour had no reason to doubt the landlord would pass their message on.
  4. The landlord recognised it put the resident in an awkward position. The Ombudsman acknowledges that mistakes are made. Our focus is on how the landlord attempted to rectify matters afterwards.
  5. As soon as the landlord became aware of the mistake, it apologised. When the resident raised her complaint, the landlord followed its complaint process. This is a fair process to consider complaints. The landlord investigated and provided an explanation as to why the situation arose. It acknowledged its role in putting the resident in an awkward position and offered an apology for this. It also committed to ensuring the neighbour was aware of the situation. The landlord confirmed in the stage 1 response it learns from such complaints as these.
  6. The landlord evidenced adherence to the dispute resolution principles. As such the Ombudsman finds there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s communication regarding an event held in a neighbour’s flat. This is in line with our remedies guidance, which states that an apology can be all that is required as a remedy based on the circumstances of a case.

Neighbour’s flooring

  1. The landlord supplied the Ombudsman with an estate information sheet which the resident signed. This detailed the resident must cover the floor with carpet or other sound deafening material. The resident received gifted carpets at the start of her tenancy.
  2. The resident’s tenancy agreement states she may make improvements to the property, but the landlord needs to give written permission. While the Ombudsman has not seen the neighbour’s occupancy agreement, it is reasonable to assume it would be on similar terms, as this was a new build.
  3. The Ombudsman expects landlords to respond to resident queries in a reasonable timeframe. What is reasonable will depend on the circumstances and nature of the query. If there is a delay in resolving queries, the Ombudsman expects landlords to update the resident. 
  4. Following the resident’s request, the landlord quickly agreed to carry out the flooring check. Reasonably, the resident did not leave the landlord long enough to resolve the issue before raising this as a complaint point on 8 November 2022. This was the second working day after the landlord received her request.
  5. The landlord did not address the resident’s query about the neighbour’s flooring in its stage 1 response. This was likely to have frustrated the resident and make her lose confidence in the landlord’s complaint handling. The resident was clear in her escalation request she felt the landlord unfairly treated her and protected the neighbour by not checking the flooring. She felt the landlord was not taking her complaint seriously.
  6. The resident raised the landlord’s lack of response regarding the home visit query. It apologised saying it carried out a recent visit where it saw the floor was carpeted. It recognised in the final resolution letter there was miscommunication regarding this, which it needed to get right next time. The landlord confirmed it would share the findings of the 6 January 2023 home visit with the resident. This was 2 months after it agreed to carry out the visit. This was an extended period for the resident to have to wait for this information.
  7. The Ombudsman does not routinely consider the period after the final resolution letter, as the landlord should have the opportunity to respond. However, the landlord and resident have provided updates to the Ombudsman. Therefore, to provide completeness in the investigation we will include the landlord’s next steps regarding the neighbour’s flooring.
  8. The Ombudsman has seen evidence the resident chased the landlord on 10 January 2023 to see if the visit went ahead. The landlord responded on 16 January 2023. It would get back in touch with her when the Housing Officer returned on the following day. The resident chased the landlord again on 6 February 2023. The landlord confirmed it had not visited as it was having difficulty agreeing a suitable time.
  9. The Ombudsman recognises access to a neighbouring property can cause delays to resolving issues. However, the Ombudsman’s expectation would be the landlord would keep the resident informed, even if there are no updates. The Ombudsman has not seen evidence the landlord did this.
  10. The Ombudsman notes the resident advised the landlord on 13 February 2023 the police attended due to an incident between her and her neighbour the day before. The resident said the police officer confirmed there was grey wood effect lino in the neighbour’s flat and the landlord had previously been to check. The resident believes this was the same lino she saw in the communal areas in October 2022 and her suspicions were valid. The resident advised she did not receive a response from the landlord following this email.
  11. The resident forwarded an email from the landlord dated 19 September 2024. This said it visited the neighbour on 18 August 2023, and the neighbour had carpet in the flat. The resident waited from November 2022 to September 2024 for the landlord to provide an outcome to her query. The landlord said it completed the home visit in August 2023 and did not inform the resident of this until over a year later. This was an unreasonable length of time to keep the resident waiting.
  12. In addition to this, the landlord provided the Ombudsman with evidence it completed an annual home visit to the neighbour’s property on 25 November 2022. It confirmed there was carpet on the floor. The Ombudsman is not clear why the landlord did not refer to this in its final resolution letter or during subsequent discussions with the resident. This is likely to be a point of frustration for the resident. The landlord did not provide the resident with an accurate picture of its actions and left her waiting for information it already had obtained.
  13. According to information received by the Ombudsman, the landlord visited the neighbour’s property on both 25 November 2022 and 18 August 2023. Both visits stated the neighbour had carpet on the floor. The resident advised the police officer confirmed there was lino on 13 February 2023. This is contradictory information. The Ombudsman cannot establish which is correct, however it will be an order of this report for the landlord to visit and check.
  14. The landlord did not provide the resident with a response to her query about the neighbour’s flooring in a reasonable timeframe. This was even after it had completed visits in November 2022 and August 2023. The landlord failed in the service it provided the resident and did not appropriately acknowledge this. Therefore, the Ombudsman finds there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s query about the neighbour’s flooring.
  15. The landlord has been ordered below to put right its further failings in handling the resident’s query about the neighbour’s flooring by apologising to her for these. It has also been ordered to pay her the £50 compensation it previously offered for its late final resolution letter, and another £100 to recognise its further failings. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance’s recommendation of awards of up to this amount in recognition of landlords’ delays in getting matters resolved, resulting in service failure. The landlord has additionally been ordered to try and resolve the resident’s outstanding concerns to put things right by confirming the neighbour’s flooring to her and to us, and by reoffering them both mediation.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s communication regarding an event held in a neighbour’s flat.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52. of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s query about the neighbour’s flooring.

Orders and recommendation

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to:
    1. Write to the resident to apologise for the further failings in its handling of her query about the neighbour’s flooring identified by this investigation, accept responsibility for these, and acknowledge their effect on her.
    1. Pay the resident compensation totalling £150. This is inclusive of the £50 previously offered to the resident. This uses the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for service failure.
    2. Confirm to the Ombudsman and the resident what flooring the neighbour has and whether it needs to take further action. If the landlord is not certain, a visit is to be organised, and the same information relayed.
  2. The landlord is to confirm compliance with these orders to the Ombudsman within 4 weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendation

  1. The landlord is recommended to reoffer its previous appropriate offer to the resident and her neighbour of mediation. Mediation allows people to express their concerns and to respond to the concerns of others. This can lead to significant relationship improvements as each party can understand the impact of their actions on others. The Ombudsman therefore recommends the landlord reoffers this and for the resident to consider this.