Notting Hill Genesis (202427142)

Background

1. The resident had a joint tenancy with his ex-partner. After a court order on 17 April 2024, the tenancy was transferred to the ex-partner’s sole name. The resident then asked for a refund of rent he paid while not living at the property and a refund of housing benefit.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about how the landlord handled:
   1. the request to refund a week’s rent
   2. the request to refund a duplicate payment of rent
   3. the request to refund housing benefit
   4. the resident’s complaint

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found the following complaints are outside our jurisdiction and we have not investigated them:
   1. the request to refund a week’s rent
   2. the request to refund a duplicate payment of rent
4. We have found there was no maladministration in how the landlord handled the request to refund housing benefit.
5. We have found there was maladministration in the handling of the resident’s complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

Request for a refund of a week’s rent

6. We can only investigate complaints where there is a landlord-tenant relationship. The resident’s refund request relates to a week when he was no longer a tenant, so we cannot investigate this.

Request to refund a duplicate payment of rent

7. Our scheme rules require complaints to go through the landlord’s complaint process first. There is no evidence the resident raised a complaint about a duplicate rent payment, so we cannot investigate.

Request to refund housing benefit

8. The landlord correctly advised the resident to contact the local council for any housing benefit refund, as it does not handle these payments.

Handling of the complaint

9. The landlord sent its stage 2 response outside the timescales in its complaint policy and our Complaint Handling Code. It apologised and noted some learning, but this did not go far enough to recognise the inconvenience caused.

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.

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.

10. The resident complained that the landlord should refund a week’s rent that he had paid to them after the tenancy was transferred to his ex-partner’s sole name. We cannot investigate this because our scheme rules only allow us to look at complaints where there is a landlord-tenant relationship, which did not exist at that time.

11. The resident said he wants the landlord to refund him a payment of rent which was also covered by a payment of housing benefit. He said that the payments of rent he made to the landlord should be refunded.
12. We cannot investigate complaints that have not been through the landlord’s complaint process. The evidence shows the resident has not raised any complaint about a duplicated payment. Instead, he requested a refund of housing benefit. As such, we have not investigated this. If the resident remains unhappy, he can raise a new complaint with the landlord.

13. The resident asked the landlord to refund him a payment of housing benefit paid for a period between April and June 2024. This was at a time he was living at the property, shortly before the tenancy was transferred to his ex-partner’s.
14. The landlord explained it could not process this refund because housing benefit is handled by the local council. It also told the resident he was responsible for updating the local council of any changes affecting his benefit.
15. This explanation was correct, and the landlord’s approach was reasonable. Its income collections policy says residents are expected to tell the local council and Department of Works and Pensions about any changes. As the landlord does not administer housing benefit, its advice to the resident on how to obtain a refund was appropriate.

16. The landlord has a 2-stage complaint process. It aims to acknowledge complaints within 5 working days and respond within 10 working days for stage 1 and 20 working days for stage 2. It met the deadline at stage 1 but missed it at stage 2. It took 63 working days to respond at stage 2, which was an unreasonable delay. The resident had to chase the landlord at least 3 times before they acknowledged the escalation. This caused the resident some significant distress and inconvenience.
17. Its offer to resolve these delays did not go far enough. While it apologised and noted learning, the delay added to the resident’s distress during a distressing time. The landlord’s compensation policy allows up to £100 when service standards are not met, which aligns with our remedies guidance. Given the delay and the effort the resident spent chasing, a payment of £100 is fair in this case.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

18. The landlord’s record keeping was appropriate. It kept clear records of its communication which helped it identify learning points when handling the complaint.

Communication

19. Overall, the landlord’s communication was reasonable. It responded promptly to emails and offered calls where needed. However, it should keep residents updated during delays in complaint handling to reduce any detrimental impact.