Notting Hill Genesis (202332704)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202332704

Notting Hill Genesis (NHG)

31 July 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 request to be moved to a property with a wet room.
2. The Ombudsman has also considered the associated complaint handling.

Background

3. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord of a 2-bedroom flat. The resident has health issues which affect her mobility. The resident cares for her son who is autistic.
4. In August 2022, the resident told the landlord that she needed to move to an adapted property due to difficulties accessing the bathroom. An Occupational Therapist (OT) carried out an assessment on 1 November 2022 and recommended a level access shower to meet her needs.
5. The resident raised a complaint on 1 December 2023 about the landlord’s handling of her request to transfer properties. The resident said:
   1. she informed the landlord that her health issues made it difficult to enter the bath and she needed to visit the leisure centre to shower.
   2. she had also told the landlord about the challenges in assisting her son, who has autism, with showering.
   3. she had suggested moving to the flat opposite her, which already had a wet room installed and would have alleviated the challenges she faced and improved her mental health.
   4. the OT had confirmed necessity for a wet room and she had filled out the transfer application form in conjunction with this.
   5. the new housing officer had recently said that she was unsuitable for the neighbouring flat, which contradicted prior discussions with the previous officer.
   6. the flat opposite had since been assigned to another resident.
   7. the proposal to convert her current bathroom into a wet room was not viable given the extended waiting list which could take 2-3 years.
6. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 23 January 2024, in which it said:
   1. it assisted the resident with completing the medical self-assessment form and transfer application.
   2. it arranged for an OT to review the resident’s needs, and the assessment concluded that she should be moved to a suitable property.
   3. it sent the transfer application forms to an independent medical assessor and the resident was awarded band C priority.
   4. it was unable to make a direct offer because the property has 100% nomination rights back to the local authority and no transfers were allowed to the neighbouring property.
   5. following this, the landlord communicated with the OT team about adapting the property and the OT requested that it allowed the resident to bid for properties that would meet her needs.
   6. it updated the resident’s transfer application to a higher banding which still needed to be authorised and would update her further regarding this and how she could bid for properties.
7. The resident escalated her complaint on 25 January 2023. The resident said:
   1. she felt it was unfair that she should have to participate in the bidding process for the neighbouring flat and that her suitability for the property was adequately assessed during the initial stages of the allocation process.
   2. she found it disheartening that the direct transfer was not considered, given the time and effort she had invested into the application.
8. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 29 February 2024, in which it said:
   1. any adaptations to the resident’s home would need to be reported to the landlord by the local authority.
   2. in December 2023, OT services advised a referral for adaptations for a level access shower were declined as the resident had already been assessed to be more suitable for re-housing based on the OT report from November 2022.
   3. following the housing advice report on 13 December 2022, the landlord did not progress the resident’s housing transfer application further. There was a service failure in how it processed her request to transfer.
   4. it processed the transfer application in January 2024 which was still pending update to create a housing band so that the resident could bid for suitable properties.
   5. It would only make a direct offer in cases where a resident has been awarded band A because they have been approved for a management transfer. The resident’s housing band was considered at band C, which would not give it the ability to provide the resident with a direct offer of transfer.
   6. It offered £325 compensation, made up as:
      1. £200 for its handling of the transfer application process.
      2. £100 for stage 1 response delays.
      3. £25 for stage 2 response delays.
9. The resident referred her complaint to the Ombudsman on 11 March 2024. She said that she wanted the landlord to transfer her to the neighbouring flat that had a wet room.
10. In July 2025, the landlord informed us that the resident had not moved properties.

Assessment and findings

Scope

11. The Ombudsman understands the resident’s wish to be moved to the flat in the same building, which already has an adapted bathroom. However, we would not order a landlord to move a resident as part of our investigation. We can consider how the landlord handled the resident’s request, including if appropriate support had been provided.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to be moved to a property with a wet room.

12. The landlord’s allocations and lettings policy states that a small proportion of its properties are used to accommodate direct offers for those with a recognised housing need according to its banding scheme or transfer schemes. The policy sets out the different banding levels it gives tenants when they want to move homes. The levels range from A (the highest need to move) to D. Band A is described as being in cases where there is a life-threatening medical condition or an imminent personal risk. Band B is listed as being for tenants with a medical need which is adversely affected by the housing situation. Band C is described as where a tenant has a medical condition that is moderately affected by their current housing.
13. In cases where a tenant is awarded a band A because they have been approved for a management transfer, the landlord will make 1 reasonable direct offer. A direct offer is a single offer of a vacant property made directly to the tenant.
14. The landlord’s guidance for tenants on moving homes states that customers can bid on properties using its choice based letting system. Once bids are received, customers with the highest priority rating or banding will be offered the chance to view the property. The guidance states it will assist with filling out the transfer application and medical self-assessment forms, if needed.
15. An occupational therapy assessment took place on 1 November 2022 which recommended a level access shower to meet the resident’s needs. The assessment said that the resident wished to be rehoused to a recently vacant flat within her building which had a level access shower and would meet her long-term bathing needs. The assessment stated that bathroom adaptations were recommended, including the installation of a wet room, if the resident was not wishing to move properties. The OT stated that the resident’s current property could not be adapted if the resident was actively seeking rehousing.
16. The landlord informed the Ombudsman that it asked the local authority to offer the adapted property to the resident, but the local authority declined its request. The landlord said it was unable to proceed with offering the resident the property due to the local authority having 100% nomination rights. Nomination agreements are an arrangement whereby an agreed proportion of the landlord’s available homes are allocated to applicants proposed by another body, such as a local authority, for the purpose of an offer of housing. The landlord did not provide evidence of its communication with the local authority about this matter, which it ought to have done. The landlord is responsible for maintaining a clear audit trail of events, and providing evidence of this to the Ombudsman.
17. While the Ombudsman appreciates the resident’s frustration regarding not being able to move to the adapted property, it appears that the landlord acted appropriately by asking the local authority to offer her the property, as per her request. Having taken this reasonable step and receiving the local authority’s response, the landlord had no further authority in relation to providing the resident with her desired outcome. It was therefore required to explore different options with her.
18. The landlord obtained advice from an external medical consultant in December 2022, which recommended that the resident should be awarded a medical priority band C rating.
19. At stage 1, the landlord stated it had updated the resident’s transfer application to a higher banding which needed to be authorised by a manager. In its stage 2 response, the landlord did not refer further to increasing the resident’s banding and it is unclear whether the request for a higher banding was denied. The landlord should have clearly communicated with the resident regarding any further assessment of the banding. The landlord informed the Ombudsman in July 2025 that the resident maintains a band C priority.
20. In its stage 2 response, dated 29 February 2024, the landlord identified a failing as it had not taken action to progress the resident’s transfer application to allow her to bid for suitable accommodation. Over 14 months had elapsed since the landlord received the independent medical advice, which indicates a failing that resulted in the resident being unable to bid on suitable properties. However, it is not clear whether the resident intended to bid for properties during this period of delay or whether she still wished to pursue a move to the adapted property. The landlord offered the resident £200 compensation, which was reasonable to remedy the failing identified.
21. The evidence reflects that the landlord made enquiries about whether adaptations could be carried out in the resident’s current home. The November 2022 OT assessment stated that bathroom adaptations would be recommended if the resident did not wish to move. The landlord’s internal emails dated 25 October 2023 state that the resident was refusing adaptations as she wanted to move to the neighbouring property. The landlord said that as a direct move could not be pursued, it would advise the OT to carry out adaptions in the resident’s home. However, the OT stated they had declined the referral for a level access shower as the resident had already been assessed as more suitable for rehousing. In the transfer approval form dated 17 January 2024, the landlord documented that the OT had assessed that no further changes could be made to the property and that it would be better suited for the resident to occupy an adapted property.
22. Overall, the landlord acted appropriately by liaising with the local authority about a direct move, seeking medical advice to allow the resident to bid for available properties, providing advice about pursuing a mutual exchange with a neighbour and exploring whether adaptations in the current property were possible. As such, we have not identified any additional failings regarding the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to be rehoused.
23. The resident is still living in the property and it is unclear whether she has bid on alternative properties since the landlord’s stage 2 response. Although we have found no further failings by the landlord, we have made a recommendation below for it to contact the resident to establish whether she requires any support or advice on the bidding process and to consider whether there have been any changes to her circumstances which indicate a need to reassess her priority banding. Approximately 2 and a half years have passed since the OT assessment, and it may be reasonable to undertake a further assessment.

The landlord’s complaint handling

24. The landlord’s complaint handling policy states it will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days and issues stage 1 responses within a further 10 working days. The policy states it will respond to escalation requests in 5 working days and issue stage 2 responses in 10 working days of its acknowledgment.
25. The resident raised her complaint on 1 December 2023 and the landlord acknowledged it on 4 December 2023. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 23 January 2024, which was 24 days in excess of the 10-working day timeframe stipulated in its repairs policy.
26. The resident escalated her complaint on 25 January 2024 and the landlord responded on 29 January 2024 and said it had raised the stage 2 request, which would need to be approved. The resident contacted the Ombudsman on 21 February 2024 and said the landlord had not made further contact with her. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 29 February 2024. This was a minor delay of 4 days in excess of the required timeframe.
27. The landlord offered the resident £125 compensation in recognition of the delays in providing the complaint responses. The amount offered was reasonable to remedy the distress and inconvenience caused due to these delays.

Determination

28. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord offered redress that was reasonable to remedy the failing regarding the resident’s request to be moved to a property with a wet room.
29. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord offered redress that was reasonable to remedy the complaint handling failing.

Recommendations

30. It is recommended that the landlord:
    1. pays the resident the £325 compensation offered at stage 2, if it has not already done so. The findings of reasonable redress are made on the basis that this amount is paid to the resident.
    2. contacts the resident to establish whether she has been bidding on suitable properties and consider whether any further advice or support can be provided to her regarding the process. The landlord should also consider whether a further OT assessment is required, given the last assessment took place in November 2022.