Notting Hill Genesis (202314921)

Background

1. The resident is concerned about the landlord’s response to her reports of repairs and her request for a management move. She is disabled, with cognitive disfunction and mobility issues.

What the complaint is about

2. This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. Reports of electrical problems.
   2. The resident’s request for a management move.
   3. The complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of:
   1. Reports of electrical problems.
   2. The resident’s request for a management move.
   3. The complaint.

Summary of reasons

Electrical problems

4. The landlord did not complete the repair within the timescales set out in its repairs policy. It apologised and offered appropriate compensation.

Management move

5. The landlord acted in line with its policy. It made repeated efforts to engage and accommodate communication preferences but was limited by the lack of evidence and declined home visits. It recognised it could have offered additional support and compensated for this.

The complaint

6. The landlord did not handle the complaint in line with the Code. It apologised and offered appropriate compensation.

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 have not considered

7. After the landlord responded at stage 1, the resident mentioned other repairs in her property, such as her front door, intercom, and kitchen cupboards. These repairs were not part of her initial complaint from May 2024. Therefore, we have not considered the landlord’s handling of them within this determination.
8. The resident raised concerns about service charges. This matter did not form part of her complaint in May 2024, so we have not considered it within this determination.

What we have considered

9. The landlord’s policy states it will complete responsive repairs within 20 working days of a resident reporting an issue.
10. On 12 February 2024, the resident reported difficulties obtaining replacement bulbs for obsolete light fittings. The landlord attended on 15 February 2024, which was a prompt response. However, she denied access because she was attending a funeral. The available records do not confirm whether it arranged a new appointment at that time.
11. The resident contacted the landlord again on 13 May 2024 indicating that the issue remained unresolved. At this point, she also raised concerns about electrical sockets. She made further follow-up calls on 17 and 22 May 2024, which demonstrates persistence on her part and suggests dissatisfaction with the lack of progress.
12. The landlord attended on 23 May 2024. It found no issues with the sockets but raised follow-on works to replace light fittings in 2 rooms. It completed these works on 31 May 2024. This was beyond the 20-day timeframe from the resident’s original report in February. While the delay was partly due to denied access, the landlord ought to have rescheduled an appointment promptly after the initial repair attempt.
13. On 12 June 2024, the landlord followed up with the resident, who expressed ongoing concerns about plug and aerial sockets. It reattended on 24 June 2024 and confirmed no faults. This demonstrates reasonable follow-up and investigation of her concerns.
14. The landlord did not meet its 20-working-day target from the initial report in February 2024. While the resident denied access, its records do not show proactive steps to reschedule promptly. This contributed to a delay of over 3 months before resolution. The absence of clear records regarding rescheduling after the missed appointment is a shortcoming. Good practice would require documenting attempts to rearrange and keeping her informed.
15. At stage 2, the landlord recognised that better communication could have helped the resident resolve her concerns sooner. It offered £100 compensation to apologise for the inconvenience caused. This was in line with our guidance for failures which adversely impacted a resident.

What we have not considered

16. The resident said the landlord agreed to a management move in 2016 and took no further action. We encourage residents to raise complaints with their landlord when problems happen or within a reasonable time, usually within 12 months. Based on this and the evidence available, we have focused our investigation on the period leading up to the formal complaint in May 2024 and the related responses.
17. The resident told the landlord she was concerned about the impact the matter had on her health. The courts are best placed to deal with health disputes as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any illness or injury and how long it will last. We have not investigated this further. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.
18. The resident wants us to order the landlord to rehouse her. While we understand the reasons for her request, we cannot ask it to prioritise her over others that need rehousing and who may have a similar or greater need.
19. The resident referred to a separate matter concerning anti-social behaviour. This is being considered under a separate complaint reference. Therefore, we have not investigated this within this report.

What we have considered

20. The landlord’s policy allows management transfers only in exceptional circumstances where safety and wellbeing are at risk, and these cases are prioritised over other applicants. There is no evidence to suggest that a management transfer was agreed for the resident in 2016.
21. During the complaint period, the landlord made repeated efforts to engage and assist. It offered home visits and meetings on multiple occasions, respected the resident’s preference for email communication, and provided information on the transfer process, including application and medical forms. It also requested evidence of the safety and welfare issues described, offered referrals to welfare and benefit advisors, and signposted her to local support services.
22. The landlord maintained its position that it could not approve a management transfer without supporting evidence, in line with its policy. The resident declined meetings and was unable to provide the requested documentation, which limited its ability to progress her request.
23. While we appreciate the resident’s feelings of frustration and difficulty in completing forms due to her disabilities, the evidence shows the landlord made efforts to support her and accommodate her needs.
24. At stage 2, the landlord concluded that more proactive support could have benefitted her, especially in navigating the wider services available. It offered £100 compensation for the missed support opportunities and added distress. In our view, this sum was reasonable when considering all the circumstances of this case. It was also in line with the landlord’s compensation policy and our remedies guidance.

25. Under the Complaint Handling Code (the Code), landlords must issue stage 1 responses within 10 working days of acknowledging a complaint, with a possible 10-day extension. Stage 2 responses are due within 20 working days, extendable by another 20 working days. A landlord should not exceed these timeframes without valid justification.
26. The landlord’s complaint policy aligns with the Code’s definition of a complaint. The timescales do not fully comply with the Code. This is because it states where it agrees an extension at stage 2, it will respond within 30 working days and provide regular updates.
27. The landlord issued late responses at both stages of its complaint process. This was not in line with the Code or its policy. These delays likely caused frustration and uncertainty for the resident and undermined her confidence in the complaints process.
28. The landlord ought to have explained why it was not considering complaints dating back to 2009 and referenced the relevant section of its policy regarding time limits. By failing to provide this clarification, the resident did not have a clear understanding of the scope of the investigation and the reasons for excluding earlier matters. This lack of explanation may have caused confusion and contributed to her feeling ignored.
29. The landlord recognised some of its shortcomings through its internal complaint procedure and offered £150 compensation for its complaint handling failings. This was in line with our remedies guidance.

Learning

General learning

30. To improve its service, the landlord may wish to consider introducing alternative ways for residents with disabilities to complete essential forms, such as assisted telephone completion or digital accessibility tools. Additionally, video calls may be an option for residents who cannot attend in-person meetings.
31. Where residents raise safety concerns, but evidence is difficult to obtain, it could explore a more proactive approach, such as liaising directly with support agencies, with consent.

Communication

32. The landlord should consider how it can more effectively communicate with residents with disabilities and ensure it provides clear responses.