Notting Hill Genesis (NHG) (202200857)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202200857

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

The complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to be rehoused.
2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint and reported repairs.
3. The Ombudsman has also assessed the landlord’s record keeping.

Background and summary of events

The resident lives in a two-bedroom 4th floor flat. The landlord’s records show that the resident had back and arm pain.
On 13 August 2020, the resident’s MP contacted the landlord on the resident’s behalf. They had forwarded the resident’s email onto the landlord which stated:
1. She was a single mother of two and was pregnant. She lived in a flat on the 4th floor with no lift, and had to walk up 60+ stairs to get to her flat. She had informed the landlord that she needed to be moved before her due date and it confirmed that it would look into her request.
2. It was lockdown at the time when she requested to move so the resident understood that the landlord would not be able to act immediately. However, when she spoke to the landlord recently it informed her that it did not have any properties and then ignored her calls and emails.
3. She had low blood pressure, anaemia and vomiting during the pregnancy and her GP had refused to write her a supporting letter as they dealt with health matters not letters.
On 27 August 2020, the resident’s housing officer emailed the transfer request application to the relevant department and stated that the resident was heavily pregnant and asked to be moved due to her medical condition.
On 23 September 2020, the landlord approved the resident’s transfer request and stated that it would look to complete the independent medical form.
On 22 October 2020, the resident emailed the landlord and stated that she had tried to contact her housing officer about its housing portal. The resident wanted the landlord to consider putting her forward for three-bedroom properties instead of two-bedroom properties, as her daughter was turning 10 the following July and needed her own room and she could not afford to move twice.
The resident forwarded her email to her MP on 4 November 2020, and raised her concerns that her housing officer was not responding to her emails or calls. The MP’s office contacted the landlord on the resident’s behalf the following day and asked it to investigate the matter.
The MP chased the landlord for an update on 20 November 2020, it replied that it would look into the matter and respond to the MP as soon as possible.
On 25 January 2021, the resident contacted the landlord and raised her concerns that she was still in her current property and could not handle the stairs. Her new-born child was now 4 months old, and she was struggling with shopping and taking her children with her. She had depression and rarely left her home.
On 28 January 2021, the resident’s MP emailed the landlord for an update on the resident’s housing situation. The landlord confirmed that the resident’s housing application was awarded Band D in September 2020. It had asked the resident to email it the copy of the letter that confirmed her banding and it would investigate the matter and update the resident.
The Ombudsman has not seen any further correspondence between the resident and landlord after 28 January 2021 until 1 November 2021.
On 1 November 2021, the landlord issued its stage one complaint response which stated:
1. It had spoken to the resident on March 2020 about the resident’s need to move because she was struggling with the stairs to her fourth-floor flat. It received the resident’s transfer application. However, due to lockdown and change of management the resident’s application was not reviewed until September 2020. The resident’s application was awarded a band D as she was adequately housed as, at the time of the application, the resident’s daughter and son could share a room until her daughter turned 10.
2. In May 2020, the resident informed the landlord that she was pregnant and was due on 8 October 2020. It advised the resident to contact it once the baby was born so it could update its records, The landlord updated the resident’s records on 7 October 2020. It confirmed that the resident was now eligible for a 3 bedroom property.
3. When the landlord visited the resident it advised her that 3 bedroom properties were scarce and asked the resident if she would consider moving out of the borough. The resident was unable to do so due to family network within her borough.
4. It confirmed that it currently did not have any available properties in the borough and the resident needed to continue to bid. It also suggested that the resident register with an independent housing website to increase her options on finding suitable housing.
On 10 January 2022, the resident contacted her MP again and reiterated that she was still struggling with the stairs. She had also sent letters from her GP to her housing officer, which had not been considered. There was a roof leak and also damp and mould in her flat that had been ongoing issues for two years which were not resolved. The MP asked the landlord to investigate the resident’s concerns, which it acknowledged and stated that it would look into the concerns.
On 18 January 2022, Citizens Advice contacted the landlord on behalf of the resident and chased the resident’s complaint escalation request which was made on 11 November 2021. The Citizens Advice officer was told by the landlord’s customer service team that the resident’s housing officer had left and asked how her emails were being monitored in her absence.
A few days later the Citizens Advice officer confirmed the resident’s escalation request which was the following.
1. The resident had asked the landlord to consider her as a high priority to move due to her medical issues which were not taken into consideration.
2. The resident still lived on the fourth floor flat and continued to struggle with the stairs. The resident provided medical evidence that explained her health conditions.
3. The resident explained to Citizens Advice that her flat had damp and mould due to an ongoing roof leak which had not been addressed for over a year and wanted the issues resolved as a matter of urgency.
4. The resident had contacted the landlord on 9 June 2021 as she was unable to access the housing portal so she could bid on properties.
On 20 January 2022, the landlord responded and stated:
1. It would look into why the resident had been unable to bid on its housing system for the last two years.
2. The resident’s banding was based on her overcrowded household and not on medical grounds. In order for the resident’s medical conditions to be considered, the resident needed to complete the medical application, which it attached.
3. There was an ongoing roof leak. Recently a surveyor had attended and it advised the resident that once the leak had been resolved it would look to complete work within the resident’s home.
4. The resident’s complaint had been escalated to stage two of its complaints procedure.
On 8 February 2022, the landlord issued its stage two complaint response which stated:
1. It acknowledged that the resident was dissatisfied with her banding following her transfer request. Although this complaint did not form part of the resident’s original stage one complaint, it would answer her concerns.
2. The resident’s banding was based on her current needs, which was at the timewas a 2 bedroom property. It would process the resident’s housing application review based on medical grounds once it received the relevant information from the resident.
3. The resident’s banding was now a band C and the resident was able to bid on 3-bedroom properties. It backdated the resident’s priority date to the date the resident made her application in 2020 as a goodwill gesture in recognition of the delays in processing the application and offered the resident £200 compensation.
4. The issues with the landlord’s housing portal came to its attention in June 2021 and it agreed that it did not respond to the resident in a timely manner. It offered the resident £200 for the service failure. It explained that there was still an issue which was affecting other residents and it would confirm with the resident once the issue was resolved.
5. It offered £50 for the delay in escalating the resident’s escalation request in November 2021 and explained that it could not obtain a reason for the delay as the housing officer had been out of the office since December 2021.
6. Although the roof leak and subsequent damp and mould did not form part of the resident’s stage one complaint, it confirmed that it had looked into her concerns. Its surveyor visit on 26 January 2022 showed that repair works were needed to the roof and, once these were completed, internal works would be completed.
On 14 February 2022, the landlord advised the resident that its housing portal was working and asked the resident to log in to ensure she can gain access to the system.
In March 2022, the landlord confirmed with the resident that it received the independent medical assessment and she did not have a medical priority and therefore the resident’s housing banding would remain the same.
In May 2023, the resident informed this Service that she was told by the landlord that she was being put forward for a move and was third on the transfer list. The landlord subsequently told her that she was no longer on that list, and was unable to provide the resident written evidence for the change.

Assessment and findings

Scope

The Ombudsman notes that the resident raised her concerns about the landlord’s handling of roof leaks and subsequent damp and mould in her property in November 2021. The landlord attempted to address her concerns in its stage two response. However, as part of this complaint the Ombudsman has focused on the substantive complaint above and has made a finding for the landlord to investigate the resident’s repairs complaint at the end of this report.

Policies and procedures

The landlord’s housing transfer procedure operated a four tier transfer list which stated:
1. The person with the highest priority is the person in band A, who has the earliest priority date. The person with the lowest priority is the person in band D who has the newest priority date.
2. The date the completed form is received should be recorded on the relevant system as this will become the resident’s priority date.
3. There was an appeal procedure if residents disagreed with any decision made.
4. If a resident or a household member had a medical condition which was being made worse by their current housing they may be given a higher banding and the resident should complete a ‘Medical Self-assessment (MSA) form’
The landlord’s compensation policy stated that it would compensate its residents between £125-250 for any serious service failure which had a high impact on the resident. This was the highest category of compensation.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s transfer request

There is no dispute that the landlord failed to process the resident’s housing transfer request within a reasonable timeframe, when it took approximately 6 months to do so and it was only after the resident raised her concerns. Taking into consideration the disruption COVID-19 had on services during this period, this is still a significant delay. The landlord acknowledged the delay and offered the resident £200 compensation, and amended the resident’s priority date accordingly, which is reasonable redress and in line with its compensation and transfer policy.
When the landlord reviewed the resident’s application in August and September 2020, it was aware that the resident’s request was based on medical grounds. It is not clear from the landlord’s records whether it was waiting for further information from the relevant department or from the resident. Nonetheless, the landlord’s records do not demonstrate that it processed the application under medical grounds or explained to the resident the reason behind its decision to progress her application on the grounds of overcrowding rather than medical.
In January 2021, the resident and her MP office contacted the landlord to explain that the resident was still struggling with the stairs and that she had depression. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to acknowledge and address the resident’s concerns, which could have included a review of her housing application.
It was only in February 2022 that the landlord processed the resident’s transfer request on medical grounds, which is a significant delay from the resident’s original request in March 2020 and subsequent request in August 2020. Whilst the consideration of her medical circumstances did not ultimately increase her priority for rehousing, the lengthy delay would have led to uncertainty for the resident.
The resident explained to the landlord that she was unable to access the housing portal on June 2021. The landlord acknowledged this and it was not until 14 February 2022 that the system was working. This a significant delay which the landlord acknowledged and compensated the resident £200 for its failure.
The lack of communication throughout this process was also an issue. Whilst the Ombudsman notes that an officer was away unexpectedly, the landlord must put measures in place to ensure staff absence does not adversely affect its residents. In this case it is clear that the landlord failed to put in reasonable measures, which led to significant delays. It must also be noted that there were was a lack of communication with the resident before the officer was absent from her post.
Although the landlord acknowledged its failures for the delay in processing the resident’s housing application and its housing portal issues. It is the Ombudsman’s opinion that it did not go far enough to fully redress its failure to process the resident’s housing application on medical grounds outlined in August 2020. It also did not take into consideration the lack of communication from its housing officer. Overall, these failures caused the resident to incur distress and inconvenience. Therefore, the Ombudsman has found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to be re-housed.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint handling and reported repairs

It is clear that the landlord failed to process the resident’s complaint escalation request which was sent in November 2021, the resident chased the landlord in January 2022 and the landlord then actioned the resident’s request. It offered the resident £50 for its delay which was reasonable redress.
It appears that the local housing officer responded to the resident’s stage one complaint, which is in line with the landlord’s policy. However, the Ombudsman encourages landlords to ensure that resident’s complaints are dealt with by a member of staff who did not have dealings with the original service request. This is to allow for the complaint handler to act independently and to be fair when dealing with residents’ complaints.
The landlord touched on the resident’s complaint about her reported repairs about the roof leaks and the subsequent damp and mould in its stage two response, which in the Ombudsman’s opinion was not sufficient. Although the landlord stated that the complaint did not form part of the resident’s original complaint, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to process a separate complaint under stage one of its complaints procedure so the resident could have her complaint fairly and thoroughly investigated, and have an opportunity to escalate it to stage two if needed.
Overall, the Ombudsman has found service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint and reported repairs.

Record keeping

The landlord failed to provide the Ombudsman with information relating to this case, such as call logs, visit notes and the resident’s original complaint, which it relied on in its complaint responses. This is information that should have been requested and taken into account in its own consideration of the complaint. It is therefore unsatisfactory that it was not able to provide this information. It is also of concern that the landlord asked the resident to email it a copy of her registration letter in January 2021. It should have access to this letter on its records.
Whilst the Ombudsman notes that there was an officer who took unexpected leave which may have contributed to the lack of records, it is paramount that the landlord encourages all staff to input all communication on its central housing system to achieve efficient record keeping. This allows the landlord to continue providing its services when unexpected incidents occur such as unexpected staff leave as in this case. Therefore the Ombudsman finds maladministration in the landlord’s record keeping.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of the resident’s request to be rehoused.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s complaint and reported repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of the landlord’s record keeping.

Reasons

The landlord acknowledged the delays in its initial processing of the resident’s housing transfer application and offered the resident reasonable redress. It also offered the resident reasonable redress for its delay in fixing its housing portal. However, it did not go far enough to fully address its failings to process the resident’s application under medical grounds in August 2020 and its lack of communication. It was only in February 2022 that it finally processed the resident’s application correctly, which was approximately two years after the initial request.
The landlord acknowledged that there was a delay in acknowledging the resident’s stage two response and offered the resident £50 which was reasonable redress, however it failed to adequately process the resident’s complaint about her reported repairs. Its local officer also completed its stage one response which did not allow the resident to receive an independent and fair investigation into her complaint.
It is clear that the landlord demonstrated poor record keeping which affected its quality of service for the resident. It also was unable to provide key information that it relied on for its complaints responses to the Ombudsman.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord should pay the resident £1,250 directly within four weeks of the issue of this report, which comprises of:
1. £400 for its failure to process the resident’s transfer request on medical grounds in a timely manner.
2. £100 for its unsatisfactory handling of the resident’s complaint and reported repairs.
3. £300 for its lack of record keeping.
4. £450 it already offered in compensation if it has not paid this amount already.
The landlord should check with the resident the current status of her reported repairs relating to this case. If the resident would like to raise a complaint about her concerns around the landlord’s handling of her reported repairs since the landlord’s 2021 complaint response, the landlord should act promptly. The landlord should provide evidence that it has done so, within four weeks of the issue of this report.
The landlord should review its record keeping approach with the reference to this service’s recommendations set out in our May 2023 Knowledge and Information Spotlight report and provide this service of evidence that it has done so within 12 weeks of the issue of this report.

Recommendations

The landlord should consider the following recommendations:
1. Put in a system in place adequate measures to ensure resident’s queries are being actioned when a member of staff someone is unexpectedly absent from the office.
2. Review its complaint policy against the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code, in particular review its approach that allows the local officer to investigate and respond to residents’ stage one complaints.