Notting Hill Genesis (NHG) (202127696)

Back to Top

 

 

REPORT

 

COMPLAINT 202127696

Notting Hill Genesis

29 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

  1. The complaint is about:
    1. the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of difficulties bidding for suitably sized properties, and;
    2. the landlord’s consideration of the resident’s priority banding.

Background

  1. The resident has been an assured shorthold fixed term tenant of the landlord since March 2018. The property is a 2 bedroom, 3 persons flat on the ground floor. The rent charged for the property is set at an affordable rent. ‘An affordable rent’ is defined as a rent charged at up to 80% of the local private sector rent.
  2. The resident occupies the property with her son and daughter. The resident is a full-time carer for her son who has special needs.
  3. In June 2018 the resident applied to join the landlord’s transfer list for a three-bedroom property. The application was on the grounds of overcrowding and medical issues of her son.
  4. The resident’s details were registered with Locata. Locata is the housing options service used by the landlord together with other social landlords where eligible applicants can place bids on properties available to rent.
  5. Between January 2020 and November 2020, the resident informed the landlord on several occasions that she was unable to bid for any three-bedroom properties advertised on the Locata service and asked the landlord to investigate this.
  6. On 22 January 2021 the resident made a stage 1 complaint about the landlord’s explanation of the issue as a ‘glitch’ and complained about the handling of her reports that she could not bid. The residents stated her desired outcome as ‘I would like my Locata account to be able to show 3 bed properties that I am eligible for so I can bid.’
  7. In early February 2021, the landlord amended the resident’s bedroom requirements on the Locata system which resolved the issue and the resident was able to bid. In its stage 1 complaint response the landlord apologised for the delay in handling her reports of the issue and offered £100 as a good will gesture.
  8. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response, declined the offer of a good will gesture and escalated her complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaint process. As part of her escalation to stage 2, the resident requested the priority banding of her rehousing application be increased to band B and provided medical documentation to the landlord.
  9. In its final stage 2 response the landlord maintained there had been a glitch with the Locata system, apologised again for the delay in resolving the issue, and increased the amount of the good will gesture to £150. It also advised it did not consider that it should override the medical assessor’s band C recommendation.
  10. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s final response, declined the offer of a good will gesture, and complained to the Ombudsman.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of difficulties bidding for suitably sized properties.

  1. Between January 2020 and November 2020, the resident informed the landlord on eight separate occasions that she was not able to bid on any three-bedroom properties advertised on the Locata system.
  2. The landlord described the issue with Locata as a ‘glitch’. In its stage 1 response it wrote ‘it seems you have experienced a glitch which happens from time to time’. The landlord’s explanation was vague and provided no clarity to the resident about the root cause of the issue.
  3. The landlord went on to write ‘when a glitch like this comes to light, we urge you to report it to us so that we can address it’. The landlord provided no evidence that it contacted Locata to report the ‘glitch’ or that it raised a service request with Locata so that Locata could investigate the matter for the resident. This was unreasonable and led to unacceptable delays in resolving the matter.
  4. The Ombudsman expects landlords to take clear steps on behalf of its residents when a resident reports an issue with the landlord’s service provider, and expects landlords to provide clear, understandable information to residents about how and why something went wrong.
  5. The landlord rectified the problem on or around the 9 February 2021. This was over 13 months since the issue was first reported. In its stage 2 response, the landlord acknowledged the service failures citing factors such as a system failure and a staff change and increased the amount of its goodwill gesture to £150.
  6. The landlord’s compensation and goodwill gestures procedure states, “Good will gestures are discretionary and are given to recognise a shortcoming in the way we have delivered a service (e.g., when a resident expresses dissatisfaction with your having to cancel an appointment). They can be a useful in resolving an issue and prevent a complaint”.
  7. While it is good the landlord acknowledged the service failures the offer of a goodwill gesture was not appropriate. Where there is a clear service failure or unreasonable delays against service standards, the landlord’s compensation and goodwill gestures policy stipulates compensation should be considered.
  8. There was a persistent failure over a prolonged period in not responding to the resident’s reports of being unable to bid. On two occasions the resident’s emails to the landlord were simply not responded to. This caused the resident further frustration and distress on top of the frustration and annoyance from the substantive issue of not being able to bid on properties that she was eligible for.
  9. It was only when the resident formally complained that the landlord responded to the resident’s reports of not being able to bid and rectified the issue. It took an unacceptable number of attempts by the resident to get the matter resolved and the landlord took 13 months to rectify the issue. This is a serious failure in service standards and resulted in an unacceptable delay in resolving the issue for the resident.
  10. As part of its internal investigation into this complaint the landlord created a lessons learned report. The lessons learned report acknowledged it needs to be more transparent and clearer about how Locata complaints are addressed to resolve them quickly.
  11. Accordingly, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of difficulties bidding for suitably sized properties.

The landlord’s consideration of the resident’s priority banding

  1. To resolve her complaint the resident requested the landlord increase her priority banding from band C to band B. The landlord invited the resident to submit medical information so the family circumstances could be assessed by the landlord’s medical assessor (NOW medical).
  2. The outcome of the medical assessment by NOW medical was no change to the resident’s priority banding. Therefore, the resident remained in priority band C. The resident wrote to the landlord to advise she was dissatisfied with this outcome as she believed the combined circumstances of medical issues and overcrowding warranted a priority band B.
  3. The landlords transfer procedure in relation to NOW medical outcomes states “If the resident is dissatisfied with this decision an appeal can be made to the Lettings Panel. The resident will need to provide the evidence they want the panel to consider and a written statement to the housing officer who will submit it to the panel”.
  4. The documents provided by the landlord indicate it discussed the resident’s priority banding internally, however the resident was not advised of her right to appeal and have her case presented to the lettings panel. Therefore, the resident did not have the opportunity to prepare a written statement for the lettings panel to articulate the levels of hardship faced by the family.
  5. The lettings panel was a further opportunity for the resident to have her priority banding reconsidered after the Now medical assessment. In the circumstances it was unfair and unreasonable not to offer the resident appeal rights to the lettings panel.
  6. The landlord’s transfers procedure states “If the resident is overcrowded the housing officer should carry out an initial assessment and if it is thought the customer may be statutorily overcrowded a full assessment should be carried out using the statutory overcrowding assessment form”.
  7. The landlord was aware the family was overcrowded but has provided no evidence that an overcrowding assessment was carried out in line with its procedure. This assessment was important for the resident as the outcome of the assessment may result in an award of priority band B for the resident.
  8. The Ombudsman finds that after the resident’s formal complaint in 2021 the landlord did make attempts to assist the resident with the matter of priority banding. A housing officer sought to influence colleagues on the issue. The documents provided by the landlord for this investigation evidence the landlord was open to reviewing the residents banding and the resident’s case was referred to NOW medical for a fresh medical assessment.
  9. However, prescribed steps in the landlord’s transfers procedure were not followed. The resident was not offered appeal rights to the lettings panel when she advised the landlord she was dissatisfied with the outcome of the NOW medical assessment, and the overcrowding assessment was not carried out when it was a known case of overcrowding.
  10. Accordingly, there was maladministration in the landlord’s consideration of the resident’s priority banding.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of difficulties bidding for suitably sized properties.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s consideration of the resident’s priority banding.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord should pay £400 compensation to the resident comprising, £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its delays to appropriately address the ‘glitch’ and a further £200 for failure to follow prescribed steps in its transfers procedure.
  2. The landlord should provide information to the resident on the appeal process to the lettings panel in respect of her medical assessment.
  3. The landlord should appoint a suitably qualified person to carry out an overcrowding assessment of the property.
  4. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord should provide the Ombudsman with evidence the above orders have been complied with.

Recommendation

  1. In line with its lessons learned report the landlord should develop a clear process for managing and resolving glitches with the Locata platform.