Notting Hill Genesis (NHG) (202119211)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202119211

Notting Hill Genesis

30 June 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 the landlord providing transportation for the resident to view a property.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident held an assured shorthold tenancy with the landlord at the time of the complaint. The property was a one bedroom third floor flat. The resident is disabled and uses a wheelchair.
On 2 November 2021 the landlord emailed the resident and informed him that there was a property available for him to view, with a tenancy commencement date of a few days later. The resident said that he would not be willing to move into the property until it was fully adapted to meet his needs. He also said that the landlord had not arranged a taxi to collect him to and from the viewing. In response the landlord said that if there were arrangements in place for transport, the resident should discuss this with his housing officer, as transport costs to view a property were generally the resident’s responsibility. The resident replied and said that he would be willing to view the property if the landlord paid for a taxi to and from the viewing, and if it agreed that the property would be fully adapted before he moved in. The landlord said that it was unable to commit to these requests and cancelled the viewing, again advising the resident to contact his housing officer regarding how he would like to proceed.
The resident emailed their housing officer but received no reply. Subsequently, the resident emailed the landlord and said that it had cancelled the viewing of the property because it was unwilling to organise transport for him. He said that the landlord had previously told him that it would arrange transport for him to view properties and that it had failed to tell the relevant staff about this agreement. He asked the landlord if it had withdrawn the offer of the property. The landlord said that it had told the resident to speak with his own housing officer about transportation and that he had not done so. It said that based on this and the questions he had asked relating to the suitability of the property, that it had withdrawn the offer.
On 19 November 2021 the resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord. In summary his complaint said:

a. The landlord had failed to inform the relevant staff that he needed transportation to view the property.

b. The landlord had failed to arrange transportation for him to view the property.

c. The landlord had accused him of not contacting his own housing officer.

The landlord had accused him of refusing to go and view the property.
It was the landlord’s refusal to provide transportation that prevented him from going to view the property.

On 29 November 2021 the landlord issued a ‘quick fix’ response to the resident. The landlord said that it was not obliged to offer transportation to residents who could make their own way to viewings. It said that the resident had told the landlord that he would not view the property until it was adapted. It said that it was sorry if he felt the landlord should have provided him with transportation. It said that if he needed assistance with transportation, then he should inform the landlord in advance.
On 3 December 2021 the landlord responded to the resident at stage one of its complaints process. In summary the response said:
1. It had not arranged transportation for the resident due to the contents of his email on 2 November 2021, where he said that he would not move into the property on the dates suggested by the landlord unless it was fully adapted to meet his needs.
2. The property was unsuitable, due to the works that would be required to meet the resident’s needs.
3. That it had not removed transportation to this or any future viewing. It said that at no point was the offer of transportation to view the property refused.
4. That it had not arranged a viewing based on the turnaround time for signing up to the tenancy, and the resident saying he would not move into the property until it was fully adapted.
The resident asked the landlord to escalate his complaint to stage two of its complaints process on the same day. In his escalation request he said that the quick fix response from the landlord was late. He said that the landlord had denied refusing to arrange transportation for him to view the property. He said that the landlord had told him previously that it would provide transportation for him to view properties. He said that the landlord’s refusal to provide transportation for him amounted to discrimination.
On 26 January 2022 the landlord issued its final response. In summary the response said:
1. The property was not suitable for him due to the adaptations required and therefore there was no need to arrange transportation for him to attend the viewing.
2. The landlord would provide transportation to and from his current property to any future viewings.
1. It had not breached the transportation arrangements made for him to view properties, as the property was considered unsuitable for his housing need.
2. The landlord offered a total of £150.00 compensation to the resident, comprising of; £50.00 for his transportation needs not being fully communicated to the relevant staff, £50.00 for a late ‘quick fix’ response, and £50.00 for the delayed stage two response.
In the resident’s complaint to the Ombudsman, he said that he was unhappy with the landlord’s refusal to provide him with transportation to view the property, given it had previously agreed to provide transportation to viewings. As an outcome to his complaint, he said that he wanted the landlord to acknowledge and apologise for any failures in its handling of the matter.

Assessment and findings

The landlord providing transportation for the resident to view a property.

When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its Dispute Resolution Principles. These are high level good practice guidance developed from the Ombudsman’s experience of resolving disputes, for use by everyone involved in the complaints process. There are only three principles driving effective dispute resolution:
1. Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes;
2. put things right, and;
3. learn from outcomes.
The Ombudsman must first consider whether a failing on the part of the landlord occurred, and if so, whether this led to any adverse affect or detriment to the resident. If it is found that a failing did lead to an adverse affect, the investigation will then consider whether the landlord has taken enough action to ‘put things right’ and ‘learn from outcomes’.
The landlord told the resident it would be unable to commit to his request for transportation and informed him that it was his responsibility to arrange transport costs. Although the landlord did not have a specific policy that required it to supply transportation, the landlord’s historic emails to the resident showed that it had previously agreed to provide transportation for the resident to view other properties. It was later confirmed in its formal responses that this agreement had not changed. The landlord failed to communicate this arrangement with the relevant staff, which in part, led to them cancelling the viewing. This would have caused distress and inconvenience to the resident.
While it is recognised that the landlord’s failing would have been frustrating for the resident, the evidence from the landlord’s records indicated that the property was unsuitable for his needs. Further, the resident had stated that he would not be willing to move into the property until it was fully adapted to meet his needs. Given the short amount of time between the viewing and the date the tenancy would commence, this would not have been possible. Therefore, the Ombudsman is satisfied that the detriment caused to the resident was not significant. However, given the landlord’s failing it was appropriate for it to offer compensation to the resident to ‘put things right’.
The landlord’s compensation policy states ‘Where you experience distress or inconvenience following a service failure, we can make a discretionary payment of up to £250’. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance (published on our website) sets out the Ombudsman’s approach to compensation. The remedies guidance suggests compensation of between £50 to £100 should be considered where the resident has been caused stress and inconvenience due to errors by the landlord. The landlord offered £50.00 to the resident for its failure to communicate his transportation needs to the Housing Officer. This is broadly in line with the landlord’s compensation policy and the Ombudsman’s own remedies guidance. Overall, the Ombudsman considers that there was reasonable redress regarding the landlord not providing transportation for the resident to view a property.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The landlord’s complaint policy says that it will issue ‘quick fix’ responses to complaints that can be resolved quickly and that it will usually respond within 48 hours’.
The landlord’s complaints policy says that at stage two ‘We will respond to you with a formal written response within 20 working days’. This is in line with Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code which says that landlords must respond to stage two complaints within 20 working days.
The evidence from the landlord’s records showed that the landlord issued its ‘quick fix’ response to the resident at least seven days outside of its timescales. The response was also inaccurate. The response said that the resident had informed the landlord that he would not view the property until it was adapted, however the landlord’s records showed that the resident had in fact said that he would not move into the property until it was adapted. The response also said that he would need to inform the landlord in advance if he needed assistance with transportation. This advice was inappropriate. The landlord confirmed in its formal response that there was a transportation arrangement in place. The onus was therefore on the landlord to contact the resident in advance to agree any transportation requirements prior to the viewing taking place.
It took the landlord almost two months to respond to the resident’s stage two complaint. The landlord failed to respond to the resident’s complaint in accordance with its complaints policy and the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code. This would have caused frustration and inconvenience to the resident.
While the landlord’s approach was contrary to its usual procedure, it did acknowledge this and make a total offer of compensation (£100) in recognition of the delayed responses. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance suggests that compensation of up to £100 should be considered where there is a failure of short duration which did not significantly affect the overall outcome for the resident. The landlord therefore made an offer which was in accordance with this Service’s guidance and in the Ombudsman’s opinion, proportionately reflected the level of detriment. The landlord’s offer of redress was satisfactory in putting matters right.
However, the landlord failed to demonstrate any learning from the complaint. While this was not so serious a failing to warrant a finding of maladministration, this investigation has highlighted actions that the landlord can take to improve its service and learn from the outcomes of the complaint. These actions are set out as recommendations below.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord offered redress to the resident prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint concerning it providing transportation for the resident to view a property.
In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord offered redress to the resident prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the landlord’s complaint handling.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord review its complaint handling procedures to ensure they are in line with the ‘Code’ and identify any training needs.
It is recommended that the landlord make all staff involved with viewings aware of any agreed transportation requirements.
If it has not done so already, it is recommended that the landlord pays the resident £150 compensation, as offered in its stage two response.
The landlord is recommended to follow its complaint handling policy, by contacting the resident prior to issuing its final response to ensure all the matters have been dealt with and covered.