Notting Hill Genesis (202121009)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202121009

Notting Hill Genesis

23 August 2022


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 response to the resident’s dissatisfaction with being issued a Notice of Seeking Possession (NOSP) after an electrical safety check.

Background

  1. The resident has been an assured tenant at the property of the landlord since 14 December 2015. The landlord is a registered provider of social housing.
  2. The landlord wrote to the resident in February 2022 and again on 1 March 2021 to request access for a five-yearly electrical safety check. The safety check was subsequently completed on 18 March 2021.
  3. Following this, on 6 April 2022, the landlord issued a NOSP to the resident on the basis that he had not provided access for the electrical safety check.
  4. The resident raised a complaint with the landlord on 14 April 2021 as he had allowed the electrical safety check to proceed on 18 March 2021. To resolve his complaint, he wanted it to:
    1. Apologise for issuing the NOSP.
    2. Acknowledge that it had issued the NOSP in error and explain why this had happened.
    3. Provide assurances that there was to be no further action and that his tenancy would not be affected.
    4. Provide “damages” and/or compensation for his distress and inconvenience.
  5. In its stage one complaint response on 21 April 2021, the landlord apologised for sending the NOSP and advised him that the matter had been escalated to the highest level in its organisation. It also offered £50 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused.
  6. Following an escalation from the resident, the landlord provided its stage two response on 25 June 2021. The landlord provided an explanation as to how the error occurred, assured him that his tenancy was unaffected, reiterated its offer of £50 compensation, and offered a further £50 compensation for its delayed final response.
  7. The resident informed this service on 13 December 2021 that he continued to be dissatisfied with the landlord’s response as he felt that it had failed to fully consider the impact on him of being sent the NOSP.

Assessment and findings

  1. In the account provided by the resident to this service on 13 December 2021, he raised additional concerns about the way in which the electrical safety test was carried out. As these concerns did not form part of the complaint which he made to the landlord, these will not be considered in this investigation. A landlord must be provided the opportunity to consider any of the resident’s dissatisfactions through its internal complaints procedure before they may be investigated by the Ombudsman. If the resident wishes to pursue these concerns, he may wish to raise a separate complaint with the landlord about these.
  2. The resident also advised this service that he believed that there should be a “punitive element” to any redress arising from this investigation. It should be clarified that any redress awarded by the Ombudsman is not intended to punish or make an example of landlords. Compensation is awarded to put right any disadvantage imposed on the resident by any failure by the landlord and to proportionately recognise the likely distress or inconvenience caused by any failure. The Ombudsman does not award ‘damages’ in the way that a court might and the resident may wish to seek legal advice if he wishes to bring a claim against the landlord for damages.
  3. The Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 puts an obligation on a landlord to keep the electrical installations in a property in proper working order. This legislation also states that a resident must allow access to the property for the purpose of carrying out inspections or repairs. It was therefore reasonable that the landlord requested for the resident to provide it with access to carry out an electrical safety check. The resident also responded reasonably by arranging for the check to be completed after receiving the landlord’s request.
  4. Having successfully completed this check, the landlord’s subsequent erroneous NOSP would have caused confusion and distress for the resident. The NOSP included a warning of legal action against the resident’s tenancy which would have been confronting. In its stage one complaint response on 21 April 2021, the landlord acknowledged how this letter would have come across and apologised for the “rude” letter, for which it offered a “full and frank apology” for the distress caused. It also offered compensation of £50. This response, however, did not provide information about how the NOSP had been sent in error, nor did it provide the assurances requested by the resident that no further action would be taken and that there would be no impact on his tenancy. This was a missed opportunity by the landlord to fully respond to the issues raised by the resident in his initial complaint.
  5. The resident subsequently escalated his complaint on 21 May 2021 as he felt that the landlord had not fully addressed the effect of receiving the NOSP which had caused him significant distress. He added that he had not been provided with a copy of the certificate from the electrical safety check. The landlord’s stage two response on 25 June 2021 provided an explanation that the NOSP was an administrative error on its part due to letters being sent without its staff correctly checking if electrical safety checks had been completed. It apologised for this and assured him that no action was being taken against him and there was no effect on his tenancy. This response was reasonable as it addressed the concerns he expressed in his original complaint.
  6. The landlord highlighted that the NOSP included a disclaimer which said that the correspondence could be ignored if the check had already been completed. This letter has been provided to the Ombudsman and it is noted that the letter states that if the electrical safety check had been carried out within the last three working days, then the NOSP could be ignored. This may have caused confusion as the electrical safety check had been completed more than three working days prior to the NOSP being sent. In its stage two response, the landlord informed the resident that it had commenced a review of the content of its NOSP communication to re-evaluate the wording used, particularly with a view to clarifying the wording of the disclaimer for those recipients who had recently had the electrical safety test completed. This was a reasonable response from the landlord which demonstrated one of the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles of ‘learning from outcomes’.
  7. The landlord’s final response asserted that the £50 compensation previously offered was reasonable and offered an additional £50 for providing its final response late to the resident. The landlord’s stage two response was provided three days beyond the 20 working day timeframe for its response. Given that this delay did not cause a significant impact, this offer of further compensation was reasonable.
  8. While the landlord’s stage one response missed the opportunity to fully answer the resident’s queries, the landlord rectified this in its stage two response. The landlord also apologised for the impact caused to the resident, and set out the steps it would take to avoid this issue reoccurring. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord’s erroneous NOSP amounted to service failure, however, its subsequent apology and offer of £100 compensation amounted to reasonable redress of the complaint.
  9. The Ombudsman notes that the resident requested a copy of the electrical safety certificate, and it is not evident this has been provided. A recommendation has been made below that the landlord provide this if it has not done so already.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, and in the Ombudsman’s opinion, there was reasonable redress offered by the landlord for its service failure in respect of its response to the resident’s dissatisfaction with being issued a NOSP after an electrical safety check.

Recommendations

  1. Within four weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord should:
    1. reiterate its offer of £100 compensation if this is yet to have been accepted;
    2. provide the resident with a copy of the certificate resulting from the electrical safety check;
    3. ensure that it has conducted a review of the disclaimer in its NOSP letters.