Notting Hill Genesis (202428752)

Background

1. The resident lives in the property with her child, her sibling and her mother. The resident’s mother has a tenancy with the landlord for the property and the resident is recorded as a member of the household. The property is a two-bedroom flat. In May 2020, the resident submitted an application for rehousing under the landlord’s household members scheme. The scheme was introduced to relieve overcrowding in households. In 2022, the resident informed the landlord she was pregnant. The landlord subsequently advised the resident she would be eligible for a property offer, however, it did not provide her any further updates.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. The resident’s housing application under the landlord’s household member’s scheme.
   2. The formal complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found the landlord has offered the resident reasonable redress for:
   1. Its handling of the resident’s housing application.
   2. Its handling of the formal complaint.

We have not made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

The handling of the resident’s housing application.

4. The landlord recognised the service failures in its handling of the resident’s application. It offered the resident compensation in recognition of the impact of its failure which satisfactorily resolves the complaint. In addition the landlord provided the resident with clarity on her housing options.

The handling of the formal complaint

5. The landlord acknowledged it failed to provide a stage 2 response to the complaint in line with the timeframes in its policy. It offered the resident proportionate compensation in recognition of the delay.

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.

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.

6. The landlord acknowledged within its complaint response it failed to provide the resident with the outcome of her application at the earliest opportunity. In addition it recognised it had given the resident incorrect information regarding her eligibility for a property under its household member’s scheme. The landlord’s recognition of this was appropriate as the evidence demonstrates there were service failures in its handling of the application from when the resident submit it in May 2020. These failures consisted of:
   1. The failure to provide the outcome of the application to the resident after its consideration of it in 2020.
   2. The misleading information the landlord provided to the resident from April 2022 until August 2022. Specifically:
      1. When the resident notified the landlord she was pregnant it agreed to process her updated application in April 2022. The landlord agreed to remain in touch with the resident however, it did not.
      2. In May 2022 the landlord informed the resident she would receive login details to bid for properties and it would send her a list of local properties to consider. However, it failed to manage the resident’s expectations at the time. The landlord had not yet reviewed the resident’s updated application and it did not clarify it would need to do so first, in line with its procedure, before it could offer her a property.
      3. In July 2022 the landlord confirmed to the resident she would not be provided with log in details to bid as it previously advised, however, it would offer her a property directly. The landlord had not assessed the application at this point.
      4. Following this the landlord reviewed the application and it was not approved on the basis there were rent arrears on the property account and the resident was pregnant. The landlord did not relay this information to the resident at the time. She chased it on 3 occasions between August and October 2022 but did not receive a response.
7. As a result of the landlord’s communication, particularly in 2022, the resident was led to believe she was entitled to a property offer. The landlord failed to manage her expectations by not clearly stating that her application would need to be reviewed and approved in line with its procedures before any offer could be made. It also did not inform her that she did not meet the eligibility criteria in either 2020 or 2022 until January 2024, in its stage 1 complaint response. This delay was unreasonable. It was 4 years after the initial application and 2 years after the second application.
8. When a failure is identified, as in this case, our role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, we take into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes as well as our own guidance on remedies.
9. The landlord acknowledged it failed to follow its procedure when considering the resident’s application and had provided incorrect information about her eligibility for a property. The resident a spent considerable time chasing the landlord and submitting documentation yet did not receive timely or clear communication about the outcome. Based on the information the landlord provided in 2022, the resident was led to believe she could expect a property offer, despite not meeting the eligibility criteria under the household member scheme.
10. In recognition of these failings, the landlord offered the resident £1,250 in compensation. It later offered the resident a revised amount of £1,750 after she expressed dissatisfaction with the stage 2 compensation offer. Our guidance on outcomes is clear that increased offers of compensation made after the landlord’s complaints process will rarely meet the criteria to be assessed as amounting to a determination of reasonable redress. Referral to the Ombudsman should not be seen as an additional opportunity for the landlord to make an increased offer of compensation in the same circumstances.
11. In this case, the evidence shows the landlord proactively reviewed its offer following its stage 2 response. While the circumstances had not changed, we acknowledge the complaint was complicated and difficult to assess an appropriate remedy.
12. We have considered the remedies offered and found the amount of compensation to be proportionate to the level of the landlord’s failings. The compensation fairly reflects the significant impact on the resident caused by the delay in the landlord providing the outcome of the application and the incorrect information it gave the resident about her rehousing options. The offer made by the landlord is typically associated with compensation we would order in cases resulting in a finding of severe maladministration.
13. The evidence shows the landlord’s failures did not affect the outcome of the application itself, as the resident did not meet the eligibility criteria in either 2020 or 2022. However, the incorrect information the landlord provided to the resident mismanaged her expectations. Had the landlord clarified the outcome of the applications earlier, it could have provided the resident with accurate advice about her housing options sooner.
14. Within the landlord’s complaint responses it provided the resident and her mother with the appropriate information regarding their housing options. The information the landlord provided was in accordance with its lettings and allocations policy and published government guidance regarding overcrowded households.
15.  Taking all of the above into account, we are satisfied that the landlord acknowledged its failings, took appropriate steps to put things right, and offered compensation which satisfactorily resolved the complaint.

16. The landlord acknowledged the time it took to provide the stage 2 response, fell outside the timeframes set out in its complaints policy and Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
17. The landlord offered the resident £250 compensation which consisted of:
    1. £100 for its failure to acknowledge the stage 2 request within the timeframe in its complaints policy.
    2. £150 for its failure to provide the stage 2 response within the timeframe in its complaints policy.
18. We have considered the compensation offered and found the compensation to be proportionate to the landlord’s complaint handling failure. It took the landlord more than 2 months to provide the resident with the outcome to her complaint and the landlord did not make the resident aware of the delay.
19. The resident confirmed the landlord also offered a further £25 in recognition of the time it took to revise its compensation offer after the stage 2 response.
20. Taking into account the compensation and the landlord’s acknowledgement of its service failures, we consider the total offer of £275 as reasonable redress for the complaint handling issues identified.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

21. The landlord demonstrated detailed record keeping in relation to the history of the resident’s housing application.

Communication

22. There was a history of poor communication by the landlord in relation to the resident’s housing application. The landlord addressed this, as well as the delay in the complaints process, within in its stage 2 response.