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

Notting Hill Genesis (NHG) (202410519)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202410519

Notting Hill Genesis (NHG)

10 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

  1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a management transfer due to domestic violence.
  2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a service charge refund.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, a housing association. She has lived at the property with her 2 children since 2019.
  2. The resident asked the landlord in June 2023 to move her from her current property. This was due to the threat of domestic violence from her ex-partner. She was already on the transfer list and requested the landlord increase her banding. The landlord approved an increase from band C to A on 5 February 2024.
  3. The resident raised a stage 1 complaint with the landlord on 13 June 2024. She explained that she was unhappy with its handling of her transfer request. She also said that the landlord was charging for a communal electricity supply that did not exist.
  4. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 22 July 2024. It provided information about the transfer process and apologised for the incorrect service charge. It said that it would request a refund, which would be to the resident’s rent account. The landlord offered her £250 compensation for the inconvenience she had experienced.
  5. The resident disputed the landlord’s response on 23 July 2024. She then escalated her complaint on 7 August 2024 as the landlord had not responded.
  6. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 22 October 2024. It acknowledged that in line with its policy it should have been trying to make a direct offer of a home to the resident but had not done so. It also recognised it had not provided the resident with support while bidding on properties. The landlord apologised for these failures. It said had arranged for her Housing Operations Manager to provide an update within 10-working days. In addition, it said that once it confirmed there was no communal electricity supply, it would refund service charges totalling £403.51. The landlord offered the resident compensation totalling £600 for the failures in its handling of the management transfer and service charge issues.
  7. The resident accepted the landlord’s offer of compensation and resolution on 23 October 2024. However, she then asked the Service to investigate her complaint on 13 November 2024. She explained that the landlord had not resolved the transfer issue and had provided conflicting information about her application. In addition, she had not received the refund for her service charges. The resident told us on 15 January 2024 that the landlord had said it would refund the service charges weekly from April 2025.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident’s original complaints to the landlord involved multiple issues, which the landlord investigated and responded to. Of those issues, the resident has raised only the ones defined above. Accordingly, this investigation focuses on and assesses the management transfer and the service charge refund.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a management transfer due to domestic violence.

  1. The landlord’s transfer procedure states that if it awards a resident with band A, they will have 6-months to bid on a property. In that time, the landlord will look for a suitable property and try to make a direct offer. The landlord’s allocations and lettings policy states that it will make one reasonable direct offer.
  2. In its stage 2 response, the landlord acknowledged that it had “found no evidence of a direct offer being made of a suitable property considering your household’s needs and risk of domestic violence, which should have been done.” It also acknowledged that it had not provided updates or support with bidding on its housing option service when requested. The landlord explained that to resolve this it had enrolled the resident for auto bidding on its housing option service. It had also asked its Housing Operations Manager to update her within 10-working days. The landlord apologised and offered compensation of £350 for the delay in it enrolling the resident and making a direct offer.
  3. There is insufficient evidence on which this investigation could determine whether or when the landlord might have been able to offer a property to the resident. There is also no certainty the resident would have found the property to be acceptable even if one had been offered (and in line with its policy it would only have made 1 offer). Nonetheless, the fact that the landlord had not been searching for properties was a serious mistake it needed to remedy. It was appropriate, and in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code, that it did that by apologising, explaining the steps it would take to provide the assistance the resident needed, offering compensation, and explaining what lessons it had learnt from her complaint.
  4. However, following the final complaint response the landlord failed to contact the resident as it said it would. And when she chased the matter in November 2024 the landlord initially showed no knowledge of what it had said about making a direct offer, or that she had provided her location preferences in October. It quickly corrected this mistake, but the resident had been put to additional frustration and distress.
  5. Overall, while the landlord attempted to remedy its mistakes in its complaint responses, the subsequent events show that it did not learn from the complaint or take meaningful steps to resolve it. The landlord did not ensure that the resident was on the list for direct offers or deal appropriately with the information she had provided in October 2024 about her location preferences. These further failings undermined the positive outcome of the landlord’s complaint investigations, and added to the distress the resident had told the landlord she had already experienced from its handling of the issue,

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for service charge refund.

  1. The landlord in its stage 2 response confirmed that the resident had been paying a service charge for a communal electricity since April 2022. It explained that once it confirmed that there was no communal electricity, it would refund £403.51 to her rent account. In addition, it would refund any further charges following its response.
  2. The landlord acknowledged that there had been a delay in it resolving this issue. It apologised for its failures and offered the resident a total of £250 compensation. It was appropriate for the landlord to apologise for its failures and to offer compensation for the impact this had.
  3. The evidence shows that following the landlord’s stage 2 response, the resident chased it for the refund throughout November and December 2024. On 17 December 2024, the landlord said that it would provide the service charge refund in April 2025 on a weekly basis. The resident queried this and on 20 January 2025, the landlord said it had calculated the refund incorrectly. It explained that the resident was only due a refund of £214.65. This was £86.25 for 2022-2023 and £128.40 for the estimated charges for 2024-2025. It said that its previous calculation was incorrect, as it included a fire risk safety charge for the 2024-2025 period.
  4. In addition, it said it had not charged for a fire safety charge in the 2023-2024 year, which cost 17p more than the resident had paid for communal electricity during this period. The landlord communicated this charge to the resident on 23 September 2024.The landlord’s calculations are accurate based on the service charge evidence provided.
  5. It is appropriate that the landlord should only refund incorrect service charges. Therefore, the landlord was not obliged to refund to refund the incorrect amount of £403.51. However, its error and the lack of a timescale for the refund was a failure to manage the resident’s expectations. This resulted in the resident chasing the landlord for information and updates.
  6. In acknowledgement of its further poor handling and errors, the landlord offered further compensation of £253.71, in addition to the refund. This was a positive step from the landlord to compensate and apologise for the additional inconvenience and frustration caused to the resident. When considered along with its original compensation, the landlord provided appropriate remedies for its failings.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a management transfer due to domestic violence.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord made an offer of redress which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the complaint about its handling of the resident’s request for a service charge refund.

Orders and recommendations

  1. Within 4 weeks of this report, the landlord must pay the resident compensation of £750 for failures in its handling of the resident’s transfer request, inclusive of the £350 it offered in its complaint responses.
  2. The landlord has told the Service that it has been actively trying to identify appropriate properties to offer the resident, without success so far. Given the circumstances of the failings found in this report, the landlord is ordered to write to the resident within 1 month of this report confirming the specific actions it is taking, how often it will provide updates to her about its efforts, and offering whatever additional support and guidance it can (including how she might be able to improve her chances of a successful property bid or direct offer). If the landlord does not keep to the timescales of any agreed actions or updates, the resident is entitled to raise this as a new complaint with the landlord and then return to the Ombudsman if she remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s response.
  3. Evidence of compliance with these orders must be provided to the Service within 4 weeks of this report.

Recommendations

  1. If it has not done so already the landlord should now pay the resident the total amount of £503.71 it offered for failures in its handling of the resident’s request for a refund of service charges.
  2. The resident has asked the landlord to explain why it will provide the service charge refund weekly from April 2025 and what happens to the refund if she moves property. If the landlord has not already provided an explanation, it should provide a written explanation as to why it will refund the service charges weekly from April 2025 and what happens with the refund if the resident moves to a new property before she receives the full amount owed.