Notting Hill Genesis (202521451)

Background

1. The resident said the landlord had agreed to move her to alternative accommodation in 2021 as part of a management transfer. However, she said the landlord failed to progress the application. The landlord is aware that the resident has a degenerative condition affecting her mobility. It is also aware that she has mental health issues and has been a victim of harassment.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Request for a housing transfer and its response to her general emails.
   2. Complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found:
   1. Reasonable redress for the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a housing transfer and its response to her general emails.
   2. Service failure for its complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a housing transfer and its response to her general emails

4. The landlord acknowledged and apologised for its failings and set out how it had learned from them. It made an appropriate offer of compensation for the failings identified.

The landlord’s complaint handling

5. The landlord did not respond to all issues raised in the resident’s complaint and did not provide a reason for this.

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.

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 did not investigate

6. In her correspondence with us the resident said the landlord agreed a management transfer in 2021, but she had been unable to access her account. She said she told the landlord about this in July 2024. We expect residents to raise a formal complaint with the landlord within a reasonable timescale, which we consider to be 12 months. Consequently, our investigation will not consider events dating as far back as 2021.
7. We will only investigate issues raised as part of the complaint and addressed by the landlord in its stage 2 response on 13 March 2025. We will not investigate anything that post-dates the landlord’s final response other than to ensure it follows through on any agreements made during the complaints process. This means we will not investigate any issues the resident may have in respect of properties advertised on the relevant housing system or offers of accommodation made by the landlord.

What we have investigated

8. Evidence showed the resident submitted a housing transfer application on 26 October 2023. The landlord acknowledged this on 1 November 2023 and asked the resident, via her support worker to provide additional information in support of her application to move on medical grounds. The resident completed and signed the medical form in support of her housing application on 8 May 2024.
9. Evidence showed an external health assessor assessed the health form on 2 September 2024. But we have not seen any evidence that the landlord advised the resident of the outcome of this at that time. However, evidence showed the landlord notified the resident’s MP of the housing assessment on 31 October 2024.
10. The landlord’s failure to notify the resident of the health and housing assessment demonstrates a failure in communication. Additionally, its failure to notify the resident was contrary to its transfer procedure which states once a housing application is approved the landlord should pass the application to the relevant team so it can be updated on the housing system the following day and the resident notified.
11. On or around 18 July 2024 the resident told the landlord she could not log in to her housing account to log repairs. In response, the landlord explained the usual process for logging in and said it would report the issue to the relevant team. In addition, it asked the resident about the repairs and said it could log them on her behalf. The landlord’s response was reasonable. However, we have not seen any evidence that it reported the issue the resident was experiencing. This was not reasonable.
12. The resident told the landlord again on 3 September and 8 October 2024 that she could not log in to her housing account. We have not seen any evidence that the landlord acknowledged this or took any action to resolve the issue. This was not reasonable.
13. The landlord acknowledged and apologised for its delay in assessing the application in its stage 1 response on 18 December 2024. It also explained the reason for the delay and told the resident it would review her housing application for a management transfer by the end of the week. Additionally, it said it would arrange for a housing officer to provide her with an update within 5 working days. The landlord’s response was appropriate and demonstrated that it was keen to resolve the issues complained about.
14. However, despite the landlord assessing the application within the timescale it set out. We have not seen any evidence it notified the resident of the outcome within 5 working days like it said it would. The landlord acknowledged its lack of communication with the resident in its stage 1 complaint response and told her it had learned from its failing. However, its failure to contact the resident when it said it would demonstrates a lack of learning. This was not appropriate and caused the resident further distress and frustration.
15. In its stage 2 response on 13 March 2025 the landlord further acknowledged and apologised for its lack of effective communication with the resident. It also apologised for its failure to take meaningful action in respect of her housing application. It explained the action it was taking to ensure a similar situation did not occur in the future. And said she would receive clear and regular updates in respect of her housing application. Additionally, it said she would receive access to the housing system that week.
16. The landlord’s response was appropriate. It acknowledged and apologised for its failings and offered the resident a proportionate amount of compensation for them. Additionally, it set clear timescales for action it would take to remedy the situation.
17. There were delays in dealing with the resident’s housing application and responding to her correspondence. However, the landlord acknowledged them and apologised. It also set clear timescales for the action it would take to address the situation. Evidence indicates it completed these actions within a reasonable period. In addition, the landlord explained what it had learned from the complaint and outlined the steps it would take to prevent similar issues in the future.
18. Having carefully considered the evidence available we find reasonable redress for the landlord’s handling of the resident’s rehousing transfer request and its responses to her general emails. We are satisfied that had the landlord not apologised for its failings we would have found maladministration. The compensation offered by the landlord was proportionate to a maladministration finding for the inconvenience and distress caused to the resident for the delays and lack of communication described.
19. We have made a finding of reasonable redress on the understanding the landlord pays directly to the resident the compensation it offered during the complaints process.

20. In both its stage 1 and stage 2 complaint responses the landlord acknowledged that it did not meet the response times set out in its complaints policy. The policy states that it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days of acknowledgement, and to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days of acknowledgement. The landlord exceeded these timescales by 9 working days at stage 1 and 20 working days at stage 2. This was not appropriate and caused inconvenience to the resident who was waiting longer than we consider reasonable for a response to her complaint.
21. However, the landlord apologised for the delays in its complaint responses. Additionally, across both complaint responses it offered £175 for the resident’s time and trouble pursuing the complaint. This was appropriate and demonstrated the landlord was keen to rebuild relations with the resident.
22. As set out in the Complaint Handling Code (The Code) landlords must address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions.
23. In the resident’s stage 1 complaint she raised concerns about the landlord’s handling of repairs including garden maintenance and the issue of neighbourhood noise. The landlord failed to respond to either of these matters during the complaint process. This is a failing and indicates poor record-keeping.
24. Having carefully considered the evidence provided we find service failure for the landlord’s complaint handling. This is because it failed to respond to all points of the resident’s complaint which inconvenienced the resident who has waited longer than reasonable for a response to the matters complained about.
25. Having reviewed the landlord’s compensation policy and our remedies guidance we are satisfied that the landlord’s offer of compensation was appropriate. Therefore, we will not make any further orders for compensation. However, we will make an appropriate order for the landlord to respond to the matters outstanding.

Learning

General learning

26. In its stage 1 complaint response the landlord said it would “work on resolving issues efficiently and robustly”. However, it did not indicate how it would do this. Additionally, it then failed to complete the tasks within the self-imposed timescales. This demonstrated a lack of learning. We expect landlords to demonstrate how they have learned from their failings and ensure similar issues do not reoccur. It is not enough for a landlord to say it has ‘learned.’ In its stage 2 response the landlord set out what it would do to ensure better communication and service delivery. We recommend the landlord should demonstrate to us the changes it has made to its processes to improve its communication and service delivery.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

27. The landlord’s failure to provide a full response to the resident’s escalated complaint is an indication of poor record-keeping. The landlord should review this case to identify any improvements to its record-keeping processes.

Communication

28. The landlord’s communication with the resident was lacking. However, it acknowledged and apologised for this in its complaint responses.