Notting Hill Genesis (NHG) (202225691)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202225691

Notting Hill Genesis (NHG)

29 February 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 landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to be rehoused.
2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for compensation for personal damage to belongings following a roof leak.
3. The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for compensation for personal damage to belongings caused by a moth infestation.
4. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s enquiries about a service charge for an estate caretaker.
5. The associated complaint handling. The complaint is about;

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. On 5 December 2022, the resident submitted a property transfer application to the landlord. He made the application due to ongoing anti-social behaviour (ASB) by his neighbour. The resident reported that the neighbour had threatened to kill him, therefore he no longer felt that he and his family were safe in the property.
On 18 January 2023, the landlord approved the resident’s request, but advised that he had been awarded a non-priority banding. The landlord explained to the resident that his current property was the correct size to house his family, and the threats made by his neighbour appeared to be an isolated incident. It told the resident to continue to log incidents of ASB, and the landlord would review any changes in circumstances moving forward.
The resident complained on 15 February 2023. In his complaint, the resident raised the following points;
1. The landlord had not offered him any compensation for damaged belongings following a roof leak in the property. It also had not offered any compensation for damaged belongings following a moth infestation in the property.
2. The landlord had failed to take his property transfer application seriously, despite serious threats being made by his neighbour. The resident also raised that the transfer request had not been actioned for 2 months.
3. For the past 9 years, the resident had been charged for a ‘caretaker salary’ as part of his service charges. However, the communal block did not have a caretaker.
On 3 April 2023, the resident chased the landlord for a response. He also said that he wanted the landlord to pay him £1,571.70 compensation, and provided the following breakdown;
1. £450 for damage to a bedframe following a roof leak in the property.
2. £730 for damage to clothing as a result of a moth infestation in the property.
3. £166.70 for costs incurred related to pest control.
4. £225 for the time and trouble spent investigating roof leaks and repairing damaged flooring as a result of the leak.
The resident also stated that he wished to be reimbursed for the service charge related to a caretaker’s salary but did not stipulate a specific amount he wanted in compensation.
The landlord provided the resident with a stage two response on 15 May 2023. In its response, the landlord acknowledged that a roof leak had occurred in 2020. It said that it advises all resident’s to take out their own contents insurance to cover against accidental damage. However, it requested that the resident provided them with a breakdown of what belongings were damaged, and the amount of compensation that he was seeking so it could review the request and consider awarding any compensation.
However, the landlord advised that it did not accept responsibility moth infestations and it was for the resident to manage. Therefore, no compensation would be awarded for the damaged belongings. However, the landlord asked that the resident advise if the moth infestation occurred due to a service failure of the landlord, and it would reconsider.
Regarding the resident’s request for a property transfer, the landlord explained that transfer banding was assessed based on the evidence and information available. It said that the ASB appeared to have reduced, as the last ASB diary sheet was submitted in January 2023. However, it said that it would review the resident’s banding if his circumstances changed, and he was able to provide the landlord with documentation to support a review.
The landlord advised that it had reviewed the service charges for 2023-2024, and there was no charge for a caretaker salary.
The resident remains dissatisfied as the landlord has not adequately responded to any of the issues. The resident advised that the landlord assured him that he would be compensated following the moth infestation, which is still ongoing. He advised this Service that the landlord has failed to investigate the infestation, even though it more than likely originates from carpets fitted by the landlord. Furthermore, the landlord has failed to address the caretaker salary element of his service charges, which the resident believes to be a fraudulent contribution.

Assessment and findings

Resident’s request to be rehoused

The resident requested a property transfer on 5 December 2022 following an incident whereby his neighbour threatened to kill him. This Service acknowledges that this incident was following numerous reports of ASB. The resident also continued to report ASB throughout December 2022.
The landlord failed to action the request until 5 January 2022, which was unreasonable. Nevertheless, a determination was made on 18 January 2022, and it is not assessed that the delay impacted the conclusion reached regarding the resident’s banding.
The landlord approved the transfer request but did not deem the resident to have a priority need. This meant that the resident was able to bid for suitable properties, but a move would take longer than expected. This was explained to the resident, which was positive to manage his expectations.
The landlord’s rationale for determining that the resident was a low priority was fair and reasonable. The landlord explained that the resident and his family were appropriately housed in the correct size accommodation. It also highlighted that the incident whereby threats were made towards him by his neighbour was an isolated occurrence. The police conducted joint visits to the communal block with the building management company, as well as random police patrol visits being arranged to monitor the ASB. This was reasonable action for the landlord to take. The landlord highlighted in its complaint response that ASB by the neighbour was no longer an issue, which further supports the landlord’s decision that the resident did not have a priority need to move properties.
The landlord reassured the resident that should any further incidents occur, or his circumstances change to warrant a review of his priority need, the landlord would consider it again. This was appropriate in the circumstances.
Given landlord’s limited housing stock, it is not unreasonable that the landlord did not deem the resident to be a priority for rehousing following an isolated incident. This Service does not doubt that the incident would have been highly distressing for the resident. However, there is no evidence to suggest that the landlord handled the property transfer request inappropriately.

Compensation for personal damage to belongings following a roof leak

The resident raised in his complaint that the landlord had failed to offer the resident compensation following a roof leak in 2020 that damaged his personal belongings, namely a bed frame. The resident later confirmed that the damage amounted to £450.
The landlord’s complaint procedure outlines that it will not consider complaints where the issues causing the complaint were over 6 months old and had not previously been reported to the landlord. There is no evidence that the resident had reported the damage or requested compensation prior to 15 February 2022. Subsequently, the landlord was not obligated to consider the complaint.
However, the landlord did respond to the resident’s complaint regarding not receiving a compensation offer, which was positive. It advised that all resident’s should take out contents insurance to cover accidental damage, which was appropriate. However, in accordance with its compensation policy, the landlord can offer compensation at its discretion, providing the resident can provide evidence to support their request.
The landlord asked the resident to confirm what belongings were damaged, and the amount of compensation that he was looking for. The landlord asking this question would reasonably suggest to the resident that the landlord was considering compensating him. However, the resident had already explained that his bed frame had been damaged and was seeking £450 compensation prior to the landlord issuing its response. The landlord may wish to reflect on this and ensure that all communication between the landlord and resident are reviewed before sending a complaint response. The resident may have felt frustrated, given he had already shared what was damaged and the amount of compensation he was seeking.
Overall, the landlord acted reasonably by acknowledging the resident’s complaint given the time lapse, and appropriately advised that contents insurance should cover the damage reported. However, the landlord could have done more to inform the resident of his options if he did not have contents insurance. It is recommended that the landlord provides the resident with details of it’s insurance provider, to enable the resident to make a claim should he wish to do so.

Compensation for personal damage to belongings caused by a moth infestation

In his complaint, the resident referred to not receiving a compensation offer for damaged belongings following a moth infestation. The resident did not specify dates in his complaint, but evidence reviewed by this Service indicates that the infestation occurred in early 2020. The evidence reviewed is an email sent to the resident by a landlord staff member, who advised that the moth infestation and damage to personal belongings would be treated as a complaint. The landlord acknowledged that the resolution sought by the resident was compensation for damaged personal belongings.
There is no evidence that the complaint went through the landlord’s internal complaints process (ICP) in 2020. The landlord has not provided an explanation or reason as to why the matter was not investigated through its ICP, despite assuring the resident in April 2020 that it would. This was inappropriate.
Nevertheless, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint when he raised it again in February 2023. In its complaint response, the landlord confirmed that moth infestations were not the landlord’s responsibility therefore no compensation would be awarded for damaged belongings resulting from the infestation. However, the landlord asked the resident to advise if the moth infestation was due to a service failure by the landlord. This was inappropriate. The landlord placed the onus on the resident to provide evidence of a service failure, which is what the landlord should have investigated when the resident raised his complaint.
The fact that the property had a moth infestation was not in dispute, neither is the fact that ordinarily moth infestations are not the responsibility of the landlord, as per its pest control policy. However, the resident raised that the issue affected numerous properties within the block and the infestation originated from carpets fitted by the landlord in several of the properties. Had the landlord undertaken a more robust investigation to ascertain if the infestation may have been caused by carpets fitted by the landlord, it would not have needed to ask the resident to supply such evidence.
The landlord should have responded to the resident’s complaint in 2020 when this was first raised and its later response in February 2023 does not evidence that a robust investigation was undertaken. It relied solely on its policy regarding pest control to respond to the complaint. Given its prior knowledge of the problem, and the fact that the issue impacted other properties in the block, the landlord should have gone further to consider the resident’s compensation request.
In summary, the landlord failed to respond to the resident’s complaint initially, and subsequently failed to thoroughly investigate the complaint and consider the compensation requests fairly. To reflect this service failure, the landlord has been ordered to re-visit this issue. This will involve inspecting the property, assessing whether any resolution works are required (such as replacement carpets) and then to confirm to the resident the options for completing such works, including whether it will further exercise its discretion and cover the costs previously incurred by the resident. The landlord should also review whether a moth infestation has been raised by other resident’s within the block.

Resident’s enquiries about a service charge for estate caretaker

This Service has reviewed the resident’s service charge breakdown for 2021/22 and 2022/23. In both statements, there is a charge for a caretaker’s salary although a specific contribution to a caretaker’s salary is not itemised on the breakdown for 2023/24. As such, and understandably, this would not have answered the resident’s question on this matter.
The resident’s complaint was clear and unambiguous in that he had been paying towards a caretaker’s salary as part of his service charges, despite the communal block not having a caretaker. The landlord’s response to this aspect of the resident’s complaint was vague and unhelpful; it said that the most recent statement did not evidence a salary contribution, and asked for the resident to provide information that suggests otherwise.
Given this Service has evidence that clearly shows that the resident’s service charges for previous years do include a contribution to a caretaker’s salary, it is reasonable to have expected the landlord to undertake a more thorough investigation to appropriately respond to the resident’s complaint. Its failure to do so was inappropriate and undoubtedly caused the resident frustration.
While it is not for this Service to conclude whether the service charges should include a contribution to a caretaker’s salary, it is expected that landlords are open and transparent with its residents regarding service charges, and it shows a willingness to provide detailed explanations when queries are raised. Had the landlord acknowledged that the resident had previously paid a contribution to a caretaker’s salary, and provided a detailed explanation as to what this contribution was for, the resident may not have needed to escalate his complaint to this Service.
The resident explicitly raised concerns regarding payments towards a caretaker salary for several years, not just in 2023/24. Subsequently, the landlord’s response was extremely narrow and misplaced. The landlord did not reasonably answer the resident’s queries. In all the circumstances of the case, the Ombudsman is not satisfied that the landlord has sufficiently addressed this aspect of the resident’s complaint. To remedy these failures, an award of £50 compensation has been made. This sum is within the Ombudsman’s remedy scale for cases involving service failure where the impact for the resident included time, trouble and inconvenience caused due to delays in getting matters resolved. It is also ordered that the landlord provides the resident with a detailed explanation of what the caretaker salary previously contributed to, why it was itemised as a caretaker salary if this was not an accurate description of the service charge and whether the contribution remains the same moving forward.
Should it come to light that the resident has been incorrectly charged for a service that he was not being provided with, the landlord must reimburse the resident.

Complaint handling

The landlord operates a two-stage complaints process. The landlord ought to provide a stage 1 response within 10 working days of the complaint being raised, and a stage 2 response within 20 working days of the complaint being escalated. This is also in accordance with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (CHC), which is a guidance document that sets out the Ombudsman’s expectations for how landlords should handle complaints.
The resident raised his complaint on 15 February 2023. In accordance with its complaint policy and the CHC, the landlord should have issued its stage one response on 28 February 2023. However, the landlord failed to formally acknowledge the resident’s complaint or issue a stage one response.
Due to the lack of response, the resident chased the landlord on 3 April 2023. The landlord issued a stage two response on 15 May 2023; 61 working days after the resident initially raised his complaint. This is significantly beyond the timescales expected and was therefore inappropriate. The landlord did not provide an explanation or apologise for the delay, nor did it compensate the resident for its complaint handling failures.
Furthermore, the landlord failed to issue a stage one response. This was inappropriate, as it did not allow the resident to exhaust the landlord’s internal complaints process. The CHC outlines that a landlord’s complaints process should have at least two stages. A two stage process gives the resident the opportunity to highlight any mistakes for the landlord, to clarify what he was dissatisfied with, to challenge the landlord’s position on matters, or for the landlord itself to consider/review whether it had taken the right approach in its initial response – and at a more senior level. The landlord had requested some further information from the resident in its stage two response, and alludes to further reviews and investigation being possible, pending information being received from the resident. Had the landlord issued a stage one response, that would have afforded the resident with the opportunity to respond the landlord’s requests, and the landlord provide final decisions in its stage two response. It’s failure to do so has meant that the resident has needed to take the time and trouble in bringing his complaint to this Service, causing him unnecessary inconvenience.
Overall, the landlord has failed to follow its complaint procedure and the CHC, significantly prolonging the complaints process for the resident, and has not offered an appropriate remedy in recognition of the inconvenience to the resident. There were failings in the landlord’s management of the resident’s complaint and as such, this Service has concluded that there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in respect of;
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to be rehoused.
2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for compensation for personal damage to belongings following a roof leak.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for compensation for personal damage to belongings caused by a moth infestation.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s enquiries about a service charge for an estate caretaker.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the associated complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord is to pay the resident a total of £200 compensation, consisting of:
1. £50 for the failings identified with the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for compensation for personal damage to belongings caused by a moth infestation.
2. £50 for the failing’s identified in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s enquiries about a service charge for an estate caretaker.
3. £100 for the associated complaint handling failures.
The landlord is ordered to arrange an inspection of the property so that it can assess whether any remedial works are required at the property to address the resident’s concerns about a moth infestation. If so, the landlord should confirm to the resident the options it can offer in order to complete these works, as well as agreeing a compensation award for any costs previously incurred by the resident due to damaged belongings.
The landlord is ordered to provide a detailed explanation of what the caretaker salary previously contributed to, why it was itemised as a caretaker salary if this was not an accurate description of the service charge, and whether the contribution remains the same moving forward. Should it come to light that the resident has been incorrectly charged for a service that he was not being provided with, the landlord must reimburse the resident.
Evidence of compliance with the above orders must be sent to this Service within four weeks of the date of this determination.

Recommendations

The landlord should provide the resident with its insurance provider details, to enable the resident to make a claim following a roof leak, should he wish to do so.
The landlord is recommended to undertake refresher training for all relevant staff on complaint handling and responding to complaints to ensure complaints are responded to fully, in line with the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code and the landlord’s complaints policy.