Notting Hill Genesis (202410466)

Background

1. The resident first contacted the local council in November 2020 regarding a transfer application which required approval from the landlord. She made a further transfer application directly to the landlord in November 2022. She said the landlord did not act on either application.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s:
   1. Handling of the resident’s transfer application.
   2. Complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found that:
   1. The landlord offered reasonable redress in its handling of the resident’s transfer application.
   2. There was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

4. The landlord acknowledged it did not process the resident’s transfer applications. Once the resident notified it of this, it sought to resolve the issue. The landlord offered proportionate redress for the delays and distress caused.
5. It failed to follow its policy in response to resident’s complaint. It did not acknowledge the delays or provide any explanation for these in its response.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration, or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

What we did not investigate

6. In her complaint, the resident alleged she was a victim of a hate campaign by the landlord’s officers. She also expressed how she felt victimised due to its failure in progressing her housing applications. We do not investigate complaints where it would be quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the court, tribunal, or other procedure. In this case, the resident’s allegation of discrimination is better dealt with by the court because this is a serious legal complaint. For this reason, we have not investigated this matter further.

What we did investigate

7. The landlord’s lettings policy outlines its arrangements for its choice based lettings scheme and the multiple access routes to this. The evidence shows the resident made 2 applications for rehousing. The first was to the local council in 2020. This application required approval from the landlord prior to being accepted. The second application was an internal transfer request to the landlord in November 2022. It is unclear what it did to assist the resident at either time. Particularly with her transfer, as it had acknowledged receipt of her application in December 2022.
8. The records are then silent until January 2024 when it contacted the resident to schedule an annual property inspection. The resident provided her availability and asked the landlord for an update regarding her transfer applications. The evidence shows the landlord failed to respond to the resident until 28 February 2024. This delay prompted her to raise a complaint regarding the landlord’s failure to act on both applications. The council confirmed that her 2020 request remained pending as it required approval from the landlord.
9. The landlord contacted the resident on 28 February 2024 and arranged an appointment to complete the required visit report and progress the application. It also explained the difference between the November 2022 internal transfer application and the council application. This was an appropriate response. While there are clear gaps in the landlord’s monitoring of the resident’s requests, it took steps to resolve the issue once it became aware of its error.
10. The landlord identified the appointment might not proceed due to sickness and arranged an alternative officer to avoid further delay. This demonstrated a clear effort to minimise inconvenience to the resident. After completing the appointment, it sent the required forms to the local council within 3 working days and confirmed this to the resident. While its allocations and lettings policy does not set specific timescales, these actions showed a commitment to timely progress and clear communication.
11. The evidence shows the landlord’s further commitment to address the delays and inconvenience caused to the resident in 2020 and 2022. Following the submission of the required form, the landlord appealed to the local council to backdate the application to her original application date of July 2020. The local council responded the same day to confirm it had approved the request. This again demonstrates the landlord’s commitment to rebuild trust between it and the resident.
12. In its complaint response, the landlord acknowledged and apologised for failing to process the resident’s previous transfer requests. It explained that, as the housing officer had left, it could not complete a full investigation into the delays with the local council application. It encouraged the resident to raise any concerns about staff promptly to allow for it to investigate. However, it corrected the errors and ensured the resident received the appropriate backdated decision. This was a reasonable response and showed a commitment to resolving the resident’s concerns.
13. The landlord further acknowledged the communication breakdown relating to her 2022 application. In recognition of the impact caused to her it offered compensation of £400. This is a proportionate amount and in line with our compensation guidance for a failure which has adversely affected a resident.
14. Throughout the timeline the landlord has demonstrated its commitment to address its earlier delays. Once notified by the resident, it acted appropriately in actioning the application and proactively sought to limit the impact by requesting the local council backdate her application. Where it identified failures, it apologised and offered reasonable redress.

15. The landlord’s complaint policy at the time of the complaint complies with the definition of a complaint in The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) 1 April 2022. This required landlords to acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days and provide a response to stage 1 and 2 complaints within 10 and 20 working days, respectively.
16. The resident raised a complaint on 28 February 2024. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 25 March 2024, 8 working days late. The landlord failed to acknowledge this delay within its response.
17. The resident escalated her complaint on 25 March 2024, and the landlord acknowledged this on time. However, it requested an extension 6 working days after the stage 2 response was due. This was not in line with its policy or The Code, which require extensions to be agreed before the deadline. The landlord issued its stage 2 response 6 working days after the extended deadline. It did not acknowledge or explain these delays in its response.
18. Throughout the timeline the landlord did not adhere to its complaint handling policy or acknowledge these failings within its responses. The complaint responses were delayed by several days, causing inconvenience to the resident. As such, we order the landlord to pay the resident £50 compensation. There was minor failure by the landlord in its response to the complaint and it did not appropriately acknowledge this and or fully put it right.

Learning

19. Recognising a complaint quickly and acting on it in line with the organisation’s policy and the Code is essential for a fair and transparent service.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

20. The landlord should maintain complete and accurate records of housing applications and actions taken. In this case, its records did not show any progression between December 2022 and January 2024, which indicates ineffective record keeping and oversight. The landlord should ensure it tracks applications, updates its records at each stage, and follows up where action is outstanding. Clear and consistent record keeping will help prevent delays, support effective communication with residents and partner organisations, and ensure applications progress appropriately.

Communication

21. Clear and proactive communication is critical to keep residents informed on the progress of their applications. In this case, it did not update the resident or explain delays, which led to confusion and the need for her to seek information elsewhere. Clear communication will help manage expectations, reduce uncertainty, and support trust in the service provided.