Notting Hill Genesis (202304740)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202304740

Notting Hill Genesis (NHG)

30 April 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 complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s service charge queries.
  2. We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is a leaseholder, and the landlord is acting as the managing agent, contracted by the freeholder. The property is a 2-bedroom flat on the 4th floor of a purpose-built block. The resident purchased the property in October 2020 and rents it to a tenant. For the purposes of this investigation the leaseholder will be referred to as ‘the resident’.
  2. On 5 December 2022 the landlord sent the resident a list of estimated service charges for 2023-2024 which showed an overall increase from £125 per month to £329 per month. On 10 December 2022 the resident asked the landlord the reason for the increase as she felt it was unreasonable. The same day, she applied to the First Tier Tribunal (FTT) for a determination of reasonableness of service charges.
  3. After revisiting the list of charges, the resident found that there was an error in relation to communal electricity. On 25 January 2023 she asked the landlord for clarification on what this charge was for. As she did not receive a response she made a complaint on 1 February 2023. She requested an explanation of the increased service charge and a breakdown of the communal electricity charge.
  4. On 2 February 2023 the landlord confirmed it had miscalculated the communal electricity charge and said that it would send the resident a revised statement of charges. Following the landlord’s clarification the resident withdrew her application to the FTT. She asked the landlord to refund her the £100 charge for the FTT application as she felt it would not have been needed if the landlord had communicated the correct figure to her when it discovered the error. The landlord agreed to refund this payment as a goodwill gesture.
  5. Throughout February and March 2023, the resident requested an updated list of service charge figures. On 22 March 2023 the landlord confirmed it had closed the resident’s complaint as she had accepted the goodwill gesture. The resident clarified that her complaint had not been resolved as she had not been given revised figures, and another complaint was logged on the landlord’s system.
  6. On 30 March 2023 the landlord sent the resident the new service charge statement and confirmed that it had sent the figures to the property address and not the preferred correspondence address. The resident chased a response to her complaint throughout April, May and June 2023. On 27 June 2023 the landlord acknowledged the complaint at stage 1 and gave 6 July 2023 as the estimated date for a formal response.
  7. The landlord issued the stage 1 response on 6 July 2023 and on the same day, the resident asked for the complaint to be escalated to stage 2. The resident chased the landlord for a response regularly and on 25 August 2023 it offered her £150 compensation in recognition of the delays.
  8. On 28 September 2023 the landlord issued the stage 2 response. It acknowledged complaint handling failures and offered £350 compensation made up of £250 for the delay in stage 2 response and £100 for the first complaint being closed without the resident’s knowledge.
  9. The resident contacted this Service in October 2023 and asked us to investigate as she remains unhappy with the landlord’s handling of her service charge query and the associated complaint.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s service charge queries

  1. The landlord’s service charge policy states that it will provide clear and accurate service charge budgets for residents with commentary where applicable. It also says that it will provide details on how the charges were calculated and what services they represent.
  2. It told the resident that each year it issues estimated service charge statements in December and allows residents until January to challenge any items. Following the resident’s query about the communal electricity, the landlord corrected the figures and issued a new statement. However, it did not send the statement to the resident’s correspondence address and did not give her the option to receive it by email.
  3. As the resident had complained about the landlord’s poor communication regarding the service charges, the landlord should have informed her when it generated a new statement and told her where it had been sent. This would have given her the opportunity to consider the new figures and advise the landlord if she had any additional queries.
  4. Her original queries regarding the price per unit, items included in the electricity charge, and communal usage were never answered. While the resident may have been satisfied without this information after the figure was corrected, the landlord did not confirm this.
  5. During the period investigated, a new property management officer (PMO) took over responsibility for the building and therefore the resident’s query. There were also a few occasions where staff were either on leave or off sick. While we recognise that this cannot always be mitigated, the resident was told that the responsibility was hers to ensure she copied in additional staff to her emails or they may not be looked at. This is not the resident’s responsibility, and the landlord should have processes in place to ensure that communication is picked up when staff are absent.
  6. The landlord confirmed that it had made an error with the calculation 38 working days after the resident queried the statement. There is no strict deadline on how quickly the landlord responds to service charge queries. However, the resident was in contact with the landlord regularly and the landlord had already corrected its error so could have informed her much sooner. As a result, the resident experienced additional concern and distress as she believed her service charges were increasing by over £200 per month and did not know why. This meant that she felt that her only option was to request a determination through the FTT.
  7. The landlord’s compensation policy states that if a service failure causes a resident to incur additional expenses it may cover reasonable additional expense in addition to any other compensation payable. It also allows good will gestures of up to £50. The landlord offered the resident £100 to cover the FTT fee as it acknowledged that there had been a service failure. This payment was framed as a good will gesture, however this conflicts with the landlord’s policy. It did not offer any other compensation for its handling of the service charge queries at any point in the complaints process.
  8. When considering whether there have been service failings by a landlord, we consider whether its actions were in line with our dispute resolution principles of be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes. There is no evidence that the landlord explained to the resident what error it made, how it had occurred, and how it would ensure it would not happen again. We have also seen no evidence of the same in its internal records. We would expect that given the matter was raised as a complaint, the landlord would take steps to ensure this matter did not recur.
  9. There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s service charge queries. While it recognised quickly that it had made an error, it did not communicate this to the resident within a reasonable timescale. Its communication throughout was poor, and it did not record the resident’s contact information correctly. This meant that she did not receive the revised service charge statement in enough time to enable her to query any other charges she did not understand. It did reimburse her for the FTT fee, but it did not offer compensation for its wider handling of her queries.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s complaint policy states that if a complaint can be resolved within 10 days with a single action and no complex investigation it will be classed as a ‘quick fix’ complaint and closed without a formal response. The complainant must agree to this action. If this does not apply, the landlord has a 2-stage complaints policy. It promises to respond within 10 working days at stage 1, and 20 working days at stage 2.
  2. Complaint handling in this case was not in line with its policy. The resident made her initial complaint because she was unhappy with the lack of clear explanation for the increase in service charge. She asked for a clear breakdown of the additional cost, including forecast kilowatt hour usage for the block and the price per unit that the electric board charged.
  3. In subsequent communication the landlord confirmed that it had made an error in its calculations and provided the correct figure. It did not confirm whether she still required the information regarding block usage or price per unit. The resident requested that the landlord refund the fee she had paid for the FTT, which it did agree to. However, the landlord logged this payment as being compensation as part of her complaint and closed it under its ‘quick fix’ pathway.
  4. This was not agreed with, nor communicated to, the resident. The resident believed that her complaint was ongoing as the goodwill gesture was directly related to the FTT cost, which was separate to the substantive complaint. She raised additional complaints using the landlord’s online system as the landlord had closed her previous complaint.
  5. When the resident chased her stage 2 response the landlord asked her on multiple occasions what stage her complaint was at, and for her reasons for escalation. It is understandable that this would be frustrating for the resident as the landlord’s staff should have access to this information.
  6. There is no evidence of a formal stage 2 acknowledgement, but the landlord emailed the resident on 15 May 2023 to ask what the reason was for her escalation request. The landlord then took no action as the resident had not responded. She later informed it that she had not received the email. When she chased the response, the landlord said that it would progress the complaint but that it needed to determine what the previous £100 compensation was awarded for. The landlord should have had this information clearly logged on its system.
  7. Although it had already indicated that it was reopening her previous complaint, it issued a stage 1 response on 6 July 2023. The reply said that it was to the complaint raised in February 2023, however it did not mention the discussions as part of the quick fix complaint. The response itself contained a timeline of events but did not specify whether the resident’s complaint was upheld or not. It did not consider whether there had been any complaint handling failures.
  8. The complaint response was sent by the resident’s property management officer (PMO), who was one of the subjects of the complaint. This was not appropriate. The complaints policy states that if a complaint is about an officer, their manager will handle the complaint. This appeared to have been the original intention as the PMO’s manager contacted the resident, but the stage 1 investigation and response should also have been completed by the manager.
  9. After the resident escalated her complaint to stage 2, there were additional delays with that response. After approximately 5 weeks, the landlord offered the resident £150 compensation in recognition of the delays but said that this was separate to any compensation it would offer in the complaints process. We have not seen evidence that this payment was made and it did not refer to it again. It asked for the resident’s reasons for escalating her complaint, but the resident had already stated her reasons on several occasions, and this was not recognised by the landlord.
  10. The landlord issued the stage 2 response 60 working days after the resident requested escalation. This is 40 days longer than the deadline as stated in the landlord’s complaints policy. It reiterated that it believed the resident was agreeing to close her original complaint by accepting the £100 compensation and apologised for the misunderstanding. It offered compensation for the original misunderstanding and for the delay in stage 2 response.
  11. The resident also told the landlord that the original £100 compensation did not reach her in the time frame that it had given her. It clarified the timescale and confirmed that future compensation would be sent the same day using a quicker, online system. However, the landlord sent the payment link for the £350 compensation offered at stage 2 to the resident’s tenant, not directly to her. When she questioned this, it said it had used the details on file. Given the weight of correspondence between the resident and the landlord, the landlord should have been aware of the resident’s primary email address. There is evidence that the resident reminded it that she did not reside at the property as documentation had already been sent to the wrong address.
  12. In determining whether there has been service failure or maladministration we consider both the events that initially prompted a complaint and the landlord’s response to the complaint. The extent to which a landlord has recognised any failures and the steps it has taken to offer redress and learn from the complaint can be as relevant as the original mistake or service failure.
  13. In this case, the complaint process was unreasonably long resulting in the resident approaching this Service, and the landlord did not follow its complaints policy. It closed the original complaint as a ‘quick fix’ without resolving it or consulting the resident. In its stage 1 complaint response it did not address the substantive issue, and did not say whether it upheld the resident’s complaint.
  14. The compensation offered by the landlord for complaint handling did not proportionately reflect the impact of the service failures on the resident. It did not acknowledge its communication failings, the incomplete stage 1 response or the fact that the resident had to raise additional complaints via the online system. When she attempted to escalate to stage 2, the landlord repeatedly asked for her reasoning which she had provided in her original request. The compensation offered did not reflect the level of inconvenience, time and trouble the resident experienced during the period investigated.
  15. It did not effectively log what each compensation payment was awarded for. This resulted in additional delays for the resident as she had to explain the nature of the £100 it paid her to offset her FTT application costs. It also failed to complete due diligence before issuing the final payment link which resulted in the link being sent to the resident’s tenant.
  16. Overall, the £350 compensation the landlord offered was reasonable and went some way to providing redress but it did not recognise the additional issues with complaint handling. These errors meant that the resident had a protracted complaint handling journey and she was not able to contact the Ombudsman for an extended period. For this reason, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling. We have seen evidence that since the period of investigation the landlord has arranged for training in complaint handling and service charge management to its staff. We will therefore make no orders relating to staff training in this report.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s service charge queries.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

  1. The Ombudsman makes the following orders:
  2. Within 4 weeks of this report, the landlord must:
    1. Apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this case which include, but are not limited to, complaint handling, poor communication and poor record keeping. The apology should be in the format preferred by the resident and a copy must be sent to the Ombudsman as proof of compliance.
    2. Pay the resident the sum of £100 for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble relating to its handling of her service charge queries. This is additional to any compensation already paid throughout this complaint. Proof of payment must be provided to this Service as proof of compliance.
    3. Contact the resident to confirm her preferred correspondence address and contact details. It should ensure that these details are visible to all staff and provide evidence of this confirmation to the Ombudsman.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should consider what checks it will complete when issuing payment links, for example, asking the resident to confirm which email address the link should go to rather than using internal records.