Notting Hill Genesis (NHG) (202209312)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202209312

Notting Hill Genesis (NHG)

28 October 2024

 

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 the landlord’s response to the resident’s report that its concierge declined to provide access to his visitor.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident has an assured tenancy with the landlord which is a housing association. The tenancy commenced on 22 June 2010. The landlord’s records show that the resident has a history of brain surgery. He has suffered a stroke and requires the use of a wheelchair outdoors and indoors. His wife is disabled and has a double-handed care package and is hoisted for transfers.
  2. The property is a 2 bedroom flat on the second floor. The landlord has discharged some of its responsibilities to a managing agent and there is a concierge service in place at the property.
  3. The resident has been designated a “fully wheelchair adapted parking space” in the gated car park. The car park is only accessible via key fob, vehicle sensor or by the concierge.
  4. On 9 January 2023 the resident had arranged for a visitor to come to his property to care for his wife while he and his son were away from the property. His son had driven the resident’s car to work so his parking bay was empty meaning his visitor could park there. However, when the visitor alerted the concierge of their need to gain access they “refused.” They were advised to wait until another car came in or out to be able to gain access. It is unclear whether the visitor eventually gained access and if so by what means.
  5. Following email correspondence with the landlord, on 19 January 2023 the resident emailed to request that it open a formal stage 1 complaint regarding the incident. This was because he was not satisfied that it had provided a full response to his report.
  6. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 23 January 2023, as follows:
    1. Its access control system was down over weekend so the gate could not be opened from the concierge desk.
    2. Visitors would normally be expected to use the main entrance as there was no visitor parking.
    3. It set out the steps it had taken to investigate the complaint with the managing agent.
    4. It considered the matter “fully resolved” and stated its intention to close the complaint at Stage 1.
  7. On 23 January 2023 the resident emailed the landlord to request to escalate his complaint to stage 2 of the process.
  8. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 27 February 2023, the main points being:
    1. It apologised for the delay in issuing its response and offered £60 compensation.
    2. It said it would ensure it managed its complaints process better to prevent delays. This included putting in place “complaint huddles” to review complaints daily to improve its complaint handling.
    3. At stage 1 it advised that access could not be provided directly from the front desk due to system failure and because visitors did not have access to the car park.
    4. There was a facility to park temporarily for 30 minutes to load or unload items. It said it had emailed the resident to confirm if that was the case, and that if it did not hear back it would assume access was requested for the visitor to be able to park in the car park.
    5. It acknowledged that it was a difficult situation for the resident as he was not at home at the time. It acknowledged he had requested the concierge to physically go to assist his visitor but they were unable to do so on this occasion.
    6. It was satisfied with the explanation it had provided as to why the concierge was unable to provide access which was because the system was down.
    7. It apologised that the resident was inconvenienced and that his son had to come home from work for which it offered £50 as a goodwill gesture.
    8. The resident had asked to formally raise a stage 1 complaint on 19 January 2023 and it issued its response on 23 January. Prior to that communication from the resident on the matter was handled as “enquiries.”
    9. Both the quick fix and stage 1 response were issued on time and within 10 days.
  9. On 28 March 2023 the resident emailed this Service to ask that we investigate his complaint. He said that on the day of the incident he had arranged for someone to assist his disabled wife but the concierge refused to provide access. He was dissatisfied that the landlord had said it was because the system was down but later added that it was because there was no visitor parking.

Assessment and findings

Landlord’s obligations, policies and procedures.

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy says that it will:
    1. Acknowledge stage 1 complaints within 2 working days and will discuss the outcome the resident is seeking. Where it can resolve the issues to the resident’s satisfaction within 10 days it will close it as a quick fix case if the resident agrees.
    2. It will provide its response to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s report that its concierge declined to provide access to his visitor.

  1. The landlord emailed the resident on 10 January 2023 to confirm it would investigate the incident with the managing agent. On 11 January the managing agent emailed the landlord to confirm that the access control system had been down so it could not be opened from the front desk. It advised that there was no visitor parking in any event. On 12 January the landlord emailed the resident to provide an update accordingly. It was appropriate for the landlord to liaise with the managing agent as part of its investigation and update the resident.
  2. The resident replied on the same day, 12 January, to say he had also requested the concierge physically assist his visitor but again he declined. He said he had to call his son back from work to help which made him angry and caused anxiety. The landlord emailed the resident, also on 12 January, to confirm it would discuss further with the managing agent.
  3. In his email to this Service dated 28 March 2023 the resident set out that his visitor required access to be able to park in his designated and empty parking bay to be able to care for his disabled wife. This goes some way to explaining the level of distress caused by the concierge’s refusal to assist.
  4. Unfortunately, there is no evidence that the visitor communicated this to the concierge at the time or that the resident communicated the same in his emails to the landlord. The landlord was therefore unable to take this into account when investigating the complaint. However, there is also no evidence that the concierge or the landlord attempted to establish the reasons for the visit which was a shortcoming in their responses.
  5. On 13 January 2023 the managing agent emailed the landlord to reiterate that there was no visitor parking. It is unclear if this was why the concierge failed to physically assist the resident’s visitor to provide access via other means such as by key fob. It is also unclear why the concierge did not provide an explanation to the visitor at the time of the incident.
  6. In the landlord’s email to the resident of 20 January 2023 it repeated that there was no visitor parking and said there “may have been a miscommunication between you and the concierge that night [for which I] apologise.”
  7. During the landlord’s communication with the resident on 23 January 2023 it provided 3 responses to the resident’s complaint:
    1. Its quick fix response which said that there was no visitor parking and no clarification was provided as to why visitor access was required.
    2. Its stage 1 response which said the access control system was down hence access could not be provided from the desk and there was no visitor parking in any event.
    3. An informal email which said that visitors were not authorised to access the car park because there was no visitors parking. It said “this would be the reason the concierge would not release the gate.”
  8. Although not expressly stated by the landlord, having reviewed the evidence, it is reasonable to conclude that the concierge could not provide access first and foremost because the system was down and did not assist further because the visitor had no right of access.
  9. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response of 27 February 2023 reiterated the response it provided at stage 1. It did however, advise that there was provision for vehicles to access the car park for 30 minutes for the purposes of loading and unloading. While it was positive that the landlord sought to establish the purpose of the visitor’s request for access it came late in the process which was inappropriate for the reasons set out above. The landlord offered £50 to put right the inconvenience caused. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance where there was failure of a short duration.
  10. Both the concierge and the landlord could have gone further to establish the reasons for the visitor’s request for access. However, while this investigation considers that the landlord’s response could reasonably have been improved, it has recognised the impact on the resident and has taken proportionate steps to put things right. As such, an offer of reasonable redress has been made in the circumstances.

The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

  1. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) defines a complaint as “an expression of dissatisfaction.” A resident does not have to use the word ‘complaint’ for it to be treated as such. A complaint should be raised when the resident raises dissatisfaction with the response to their service request.
  2. The resident emailed the landlord on 10 January 2023 to report the incident. He clearly set out his dissatisfaction with the response from the concierge in relation to his request for a service. The landlord emailed on the same day to say it would discuss the matter with the managing agent.
  3. In its stage 2 complaint response of 27 February 2023 the landlord said that its initial communication with the resident was treated as “enquiries.” However, it should have opened a complaint, that it did not do so was a failure.
  4. The landlord’s decision caused the resident inconvenience because he emailed the landlord again on 19 January 2023 to request that it open a formal stage 1 complaint.
  5. On 20 January 2023 the landlord said it had investigated the incident and that if the resident was not satisfied with its response it would “log it as a complaint but not a stage 1 complaint.”  It did not explain how it would progress the complaint given it was not raising it at stage 1, causing uncertainty for the resident.
  6. The landlord’s complaints policy states that it will only respond with a quick fix in agreement with the resident. In this case, the resident expressly asked that the landlord open a stage 1 complaint.
  7. However, on 23 January 2023 the landlord emailed the resident to issue a quick fix response. It said “what I said was that I will log it as a quick fix and not a stage 1 complaint.” As set out above, the landlord did not mention the quick fix in its email to the resident of 20 January.
  8. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and sent an email on the same day, 23 January, to request to escalate his complaint to stage 2 of the process.
  9. Confusingly the landlord also issued a stage 1 complaint on 23 January. In its email to the resident it said it would send paper copies of the quick fix and stage 1 response together in the post. In the same email it confirmed it would progress the complaint to stage 2 and that it had 20 working days to provide a response.
  10. A further email was also sent to the resident on 23 January to ask that he set out his reasons for requesting a review of the quick fix and stage 1 complaint responses. It confirmed that the resident’s complaint had been escalated from the quick fix stage and logged as a stage 1 complaint.
  11. The resident’s request to escalate the complaint to stage 1 and then stage 2 occurred on the same day that the quick fix and stage 1 responses were issued. It is unclear what steps the landlord took to formally review its quick fix response to issue its response at stage 1. The evidence relating to the quick fix and stage 1 phase shows that its complaint handling at that stage was rushed. Therefore, the resident could not be confident that it had investigated his complaint thoroughly.
  12. Furthermore, the landlord’s email to the resident of 23 January said that in line with its complaints policy, the resident’s quick fix complaint was initially logged and “resolved quickly” without the need for a formal complaint response. It said that in line with its complaints policy it dealt with his enquiry as a quick fix as it was the first time that the issue has been raised as a complaint. This was inaccurate and not consistent with its complaints policy which, as set out above, states that a quick fix should only be used with the resident’s agreement. Furthermore, the policy does not refer to it being used when a complaint has not been raised before.
  13. Furthermore, the Code states that 2 stage complaint procedures are ideal because it ensures that the complaint process is not unduly long. Therefore, the inclusion of a quick fix stage prior to raising a formal complaint was inappropriate.
  14. The landlord has since updated its complaints policy which sets out a 2 stage complaints process. Therefore, it has not been necessary to make an order in respect of this matter.
  15. On 22 February 2023 the landlord emailed the resident to apologise that it had not been able to provide the stage 2 complaint response on time. It advised that it would “ensure” the response was issued by 24 February. The officer explained they had been off sick and had returned that day. While it was positive that the landlord provided an explanation, the reason itself was not appropriate. The landlord should have resources and systems in place to ensure oversight of complaints to ensure they are progressed in such circumstances.
  16. The evidence shows the landlord was not able to provide a response on 24 February 2023 because it had not finalised its enquiries with the managing agent regarding aspects of the complaint. The delay was particularly inappropriate given its assurances to the resident that it would reply by then. Furthermore, there is no evidence that the landlord emailed the resident on 24 February to provide an update compounding his disappointment.
  17. The response was issued 25 working days after the resident requested to escalate his complaint, which was 5 days out of time. The Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles are to be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes. The landlord acknowledged the delay and apologised. Furthermore, it offered £60 compensation for the delay. It also confirmed it had put measures in place to ensure its complaint responses were issued on time.
  18. The landlord delayed raising the resident’s complaint and when it did raise a complaint its handling of the stage 1 phase was inappropriate. The landlord failed to identify its failures and failed to put things right. There was a further delay at stage 2 of the process.
  19. The landlord’s complaint responses contained errors. Its stage 1 complaint response contained multiple grammatical mistakes. The font size changed several times, seemingly where information had been cut and pasted into the response from emails in the case. The landlord’s independent complaint review of 23 January 2023 noted the errors and commented that “the grammar and spelling errors make us look unprofessional. Copying and pasting statements made from our residents’ emails is not acceptable.”
  20. The stage 2 complaint response appeared to have been typed over previous correspondence as the top of page 3 contained some wording which did not belong to the complaint.
  21. The errors were inappropriate because it suggested the landlord had not taken time and care when writing its complaint responses. This undermined the landlord and resident relationship.
  22. The landlord’s failures amount to maladministration because they had an adverse effect on the resident. The landlord has been ordered to pay the resident £100 compensation which is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance where there was no permanent impact. The landlord may deduct the £60 it has offered if this has already been paid.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress in relation to its response to the resident’s report that its concierge declined to provide access to his visitor which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of the determination the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Write to the resident to apologise for the complaint handling failings identified by this investigation.
    2. Pay the resident £100 compensation for its complaint handling failures. The landlord may deduct the £60 it has offered if this has already been paid.

Recommendation

  1. The reasonable redress finding is dependent on the landlord paying the resident £50 as offered in its stage 2 response if it has already done so.