Notting Hill Genesis (NHG) (202114809)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202114809

Notting Hill Genesis

18 August 2023

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

The complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of fly-tipping and its use of CCTV.
2. The resident’s reports that he had not received a breakdown of service charges.
3. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is a tenant of the landlord’s property. The property is a flat, located within a block. The landlord owns the leasehold title to the flat. The freeholder employs a managing agent for the building. The managing agent runs and manages the building and services, in accordance with the terms of the agreement and statutory requirements, on behalf of the landlord.

Policies and procedures

Complaints policy

Under its complaints policy, the landlord states that it will provide its first (stage 1) response within 10 working days. If a resident remains dissatisfied, they can request a (stage 2) review by an independent reviewer. A response will be provided within 20 working days of request.
The policy states that the landlord will decide whether a complaint can be resolved within 48 hours. If so, the matter will be dealt with as a “quick fix”. If not, the matter will be escalated as a complaint.
The policy states that there are some instances where the issue raised will not be dealt with via the complaints process, these include “a first request for a service.”

The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code states:

A complaints policy must clearly set out the circumstances in which a matter will not be considered, and these circumstances should be fair and reasonable to residents.
If a landlord decides not to accept a complaint, a detailed explanation must be provided to the resident setting out the reasons why the matter is not suitable for the complaints process and the right to take that decision to the Ombudsman.
A service request is a request from a resident to their landlord requiring action to be taken to put something right. Service requests should be recorded, monitored, and reviewed regularly. A complaint should be raised when the resident raises dissatisfaction with the response to their service request.

Summary of events

On 23 September 2021, the resident noticed a bike had been left in the carpark, near to his car. He reported the matter, and the bike was removed by concierge within a few hours of his report. The resident raised a formal complaint about the matter on the same day. He said:
1. He reported an incident of fly-tipping that day, namely a fold-up bike had been placed on the wall next to his car and parking space. He advised that it could have damaged his car.
2. There was no information on where to keep household items, and the “useless concierge keep watching and stalking (residents) via the CCTV.” The resident also expressed dissatisfaction with having to pay for the concierge service.
3. The landlord had refused to wire CCTV to his flat, to allow him to monitor his property and car, because it wanted to “damage” his property.
4. The landlord had failed to provide evidence relating to service charge spending and it was a “criminal offence” that it had not provided it.
5. He said the complaint was logged and acknowledged, and to be provided with a complaint reference number and a deadline for a response.
On 27 September 2021, the landlord emailed the resident confirming that the bike had been left after another resident had moved out. It confirmed that the bike was removed by the concierge within one to two hours of being reported. The landlord thanked the resident for bringing the matter to its attention and considered the matter closed.
The resident requested escalation of his complaint on 27 September, as the landlord had not replied to each of his complaints. He requested acknowledgement of the complaint, as well as a reference number and remarked “don’t be lazy” “do some work”.
In a response the following day, the landlord confirmed that the complaint could not go to stage two without going to stage one first. It advised that:
1. A complaint was not logged as the matter was resolved. It noted that it was not classed as ASB, however, the owner of the bike should have disposed of the item appropriately.
2. Its officer was not lazy, and the resident had previously been sent a copy of its complaints policy, to understand why the complaint was not logged at stage one.
3. The bike removal was a “good and quick resolution”.
4. The landlord confirmed that a copy of the resident’s correspondence would be forwarded to its legal team, as despite reminders, the email contained personal assumptions and derogatory remarks regarding staff, which he had been previously asked to stop making.
The resident responded on 28 September 2021, and said:
1. He could not be expected to stay in his vehicle 24/7 to ensure it was not damaged.
2. The CCTV was only used for “stalking”.
3. He questioned why the landlord had not responded to all his complaints and had failed in its responsibility.
4. The landlord was “lazy” and should log his complaint. He stated that “threatening me with legal team” would not make him stop complaining.
The landlord responded that it would not log a complaint, as the bike was removed within 24 hours.
The resident contacted this service, after the landlord had did not respond to his complaint, under its complaints process. This service wrote to the landlord on 29 September 2021, to request that the landlord provide a stage one response within 10 working days.
In a response the same day, the landlord said that:
1. The resident had been placed on a “contact agreement” because of tenancy breaches and abuse of staff but continued to send abusive emails.
2. The resident had complained about a fold-up bike that had been left in the communal car park. The concierge team removed the bike the same day and advised the resident accordingly. The resident advised that the landlord would not log a formal complaint.
3. The tone of the emails received from the resident after it did not log a complaint grew increasingly abusive, which was a break of the contact agreement.
4. The photos provided showed a fold-up exercise bike and there was no mention of building-waste being fly tipped (as previously mentioned by the resident). It was unable to clarify the matter as the resident declined its calls. It did confirm that the concierge would follow-up again to ensure the area was cleared of waste.
5. It apologised for failing to provide copies of service charges as the resident had requested. The information would be collated and sent to the resident.
The landlord issued a stage one complaint response on 12 October 2021 and advised:
1. The resident reported an exercise bike near his car on 23 September 2021. The concierge had confirmed that the bike was removed within two hours of it being sighted. The resident was emailed to confirm that the matter had been resolved as a “quick fix” in line with its policy, and considered the matter closed.
2. In response to the resident’s escalation request the same day, further enquiries had been made to ensure that fly-tipping was not an issue. It had little problems with fly tipping; however, it had added extra waste collections which had helped with daily waste. The CCTV had been checked and the individual who had left the bike was moving out. It confirmed it would circulate communication that week to all residents about fly tipping and waste disposal. Based on that information, it found no service failure regarding the bike.
3. It enclosed a breakdown of service charges for the last three years and confirmed that under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 it was required to provide the resident with a summary of costs incurred. There had not been a breach of legislation as residents had six months after receiving the summary to request additional information.
4. It noted that it was good practice to provide residents with detailed costs for transparency and clarity. It was working to make it standard practice and had employed an officer who would work directly with its managing agent to ensure that it improved its customer experience.
5. The resident was advised on how to request a review of the response.
On 16 November 2021, the resident replied that he was not happy with the response. He noted that if he had not brought the bike to the attention of the landlord, it would have remained there for days. He remarked, “what was the benefit of having CCTV on top of his car.” He stated that he had not been provided with a service charge summary for the last 4 to 5 years and asked why his complaint had not been logged, when he requested it.
The landlord issued a final response to the complaint on 13 December 2021, which confirmed the following:

Fly-tipping

It reiterated its previous response regarding fly-tipping and reconfirmed what steps it would take to ensure residents were aware how to request disposal of large items.
Following contact with this service, the complaint was logged, and a response provided on 13 October 2021. It confirmed that the CCTV was checked, evidencing the bike being removed.
It acknowledged that the resident asked for his email to be logged as a complaint, but it had dealt with the matter quickly and efficiently. Its complaints policy allowed it to close complaints at “quick fix” stage when an issue was reported and resolved.
It acknowledged that given the request, it could have logged it as a complaint, and provided the resident with a reference number which would have made it clearer that the report had been taken seriously.

Breakdown of service charge

The resident requested a breakdown of service charge spending for the block.
Every year, a summary breakdown was sent of the actual expenditure for service charges for the block, including the resident’s contribution, which complied with its requirements. It would be for residents to ask for a detailed breakdown; and such a request would usually be expected to be made within six months of receiving the summary. It noted that the resident had not made such requests for a breakdown previously.
The resident was provided with details of service charge expenditure for the last three years. It said that it had not breached legislation. It confirmed that it had employed an officer to work directly with the managing agent to improve its customer experience.
It acknowledged a delay in providing a service charge summary and apologised for this. It offered £30 as a goodwill gesture.

The resident asked this service to investigate his complaint.

Events after completion of the landlord’s internal complaints process

The landlord has confirmed the following since the resident’s complaint:
1. The responsibility for the resident’s home had moved to another team within the Housing Directorate.
2. Clear instructions had been given on the importance of logging each complaint to its own case number.
3. A dedicated officer would be responsible for the resident’s complaints to help build a degree of familiarity.
4. Refresher training would be provided to all front-line staff across the forthcoming year for complaint handling.

Assessment and findings

Fly tipping and use of CCTV

The resident reported that a fold-up bike had been left next to his car, in the communal carpark, on 23 September 2021. In response to the resident’s report, the landlord arranged for clearance of the item through its concierge service. The landlord confirmed that the bike was removed within a couple of hours of the report. Its response was prompt and appropriate. Given the resident’s concerns about fly tipping, the landlord proactively requested that the area was further checked for “bulky waste”, adhering to its responsibilities for the maintenance of the communal areas.
This service understands the resident’s concern that the bike could have caused damage to his car. While the resident’s concerns are acknowledged, damage did not occur. The resident also raised concern that if he had not reported the bike, it would have remained there for days. This service cannot speculate about what may have happened in the event that the resident had not reported the bike. However, the evidence that is available shows that the landlord responded in a manner that was timely and efficient.
The resident’s comments regarding the use of CCTV are noted. However, the landlord appropriately advised the resident that the CCTV had been reviewed to confirm that the bike was removed the same day. The evidence does not suggest that the CCTV was used in any other way than to determine who placed the bike, and when the bike was removed. Still, the landlord could have provided more detail in its responses, to reassure the resident that it was using its CCTV in accordance with its legal requirements, and not as means to “stalk” residents. This is not a service failure, but a shortcoming in its response.
The landlord confirmed within its stage one and two responses, that fly tipping was rarely a problem at the block. However, it had added extra waste collections and was providing additional communication relating to fly tipping and waste disposal. The actions demonstrate that the landlord took the resident’s concerns seriously, showing a willingness to prevent the problem from reoccurring.
The Ombudsman notes that the resident was concerned and frustrated about the item being left and had spent time and trouble raising and pursuing his concerns. However, the action taken by the landlord included:
1. Removing the item within two hours of the matter being reported.
2. Arranging for the concierge service to check for any other bulky waste.
3. Reviewing the CCTV footage to determine who had left the bike.
4. Updating its communication that it sent in relation to fly tipping and bulky waste, to increase vigilance.
These actions were reasonable and proportionate to the issue being raised. As detailed above, the landlord has also taken further action to prevent fly tipping in the future.

Breakdown of service charges

The evidence shows that the landlord did not provide a breakdown until 12 October 2021. It is unclear why the landlord did not respond to this request initially. In the circumstances, it would have been reasonable to log the resident’s request, to provide the information he had requested and to confirm the action it had taken within its complaint. That the landlord did not take such action was a failing in its handling of the matter. As a result, it delayed in providing the information that the resident had requested.
The landlord acknowledged the delay in providing service charge information to the resident in its final stage response. Additionally, the landlord demonstrated that it had learnt from the complaint and detailed steps of employing an officer to deal directly with its managing agent, to ensure a timely breakdown of charges was provided in the future. The landlord recognised the inconvenience and delay caused to the resident, and offered £30 as a goodwill gesture, which was an appropriate offer in the circumstances.

Complaint handling

The resident initially complained as he wished for the bike to be removed from the car park. The landlord arranged for the bike to be removed promptly after being notified about the situation. However, it declined to register the matter as a formal complaint as it regarded the correspondence as a service request. The landlord’s handling of the situation was reasonable as it should be given the opportunity to respond to the service request before treating the matter as a complaint. The landlord’s actions were also in accordance with its complaints policy.
While it was reasonable for the landlord to treat the report relating to the bike as a service request, the resident had raised additional concerns in relation to the use of CCTV and the concierge service. In the circumstance, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to open a complaint in relation to these issues and respond in line with its policy. The landlord did not, and only provided a stage one response after prompting from this service. This was inappropriate, and a failing in the landlord’s complaint handling.
This service acknowledges that the landlord has identified lessons from the complaint and set out positive changes in its service delivery. This demonstrates a commitment to improve and provide a better service to its residents. However, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to provide further redress for failing to address all matters of the complaint and considered the inconvenience this caused to the resident. Therefore, this service has found service failure in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling, and an order has been made in relation to this.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of fly-tipping and its use of CCTV.
In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the member has offered redress prior to the investigation, which in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the resident’s complaint that he had not been satisfactorily provided with a breakdown of the service charges.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord investigated the report raised by the resident and provided a swift resolution. Additionally, the landlord went further in ensuring that residents were provided with sufficient information on arranging for the disposal of large household items, as well as introducing additional waste collection days.
The landlord acknowledged the delay in providing service charge summaries and offered a proportionate remedy in the circumstances. It further detailed learning in respect of the complaint and has put in additional measures to prevent a reoccurrence of the issue.
The landlord delayed in responding to aspects within the resident’s complaint. Although it identified lessons from the complaint, it would have been appropriate for it to have opened a complaint relating to the two other issues raised. As it did not, the resident had to pursue the matter.

Order

The landlord must, within four weeks of the date of this report:
1. Pay the resident £50 for the failings identified within its complaint handling.
Provide this service with details on the refresher training provided to staff on complaint handling. This should include training materials used and dates that the training was carried out (or is due to be carried out).

Recommendations

If not already done so, within four weeks of the date of this report:
1. Pay the resident £30, as previously offered to him within its stage two response.