Notting Hill Genesis (NHG) (202342978)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202342978

Notting Hill Genesis (NHG)

2 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 handling of the resident’s concerns about the changes made by the neighbour to the communal garden.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. He lives in a block of four one-bedroom flats, which benefit from a shared garden.
  2. On 14 November 2023 the resident contacted the landlord regarding ongoing issues with his neighbour. He was upset that his neighbour had started working in the communal garden without consulting other residents. This included changing the front and back gardens, removing a hedge and destroying the grass. The resident asked for the garden to be restored so everyone could enjoy it. The landlord instructed a company to remove pallets and debris from the garden, completed on 7 December 2023.
  3. In January 2024 the resident complained to the landlord. The complaint raised several issues, including the communal garden. The neighbour was not informed about the landlord’s plan to remove slabs and pallets from the garden, which the neighbour reported had been stolen by the resident.
  4. The landlord responded at stage 1 and stated that the neighbour had been informed that items would be removed. The landlord could not comment on why the neighbour accused the resident of theft. However, the resident remained dissatisfied and requested to escalate his complaint. He was unhappy that the landlord did not confirm that it would restore the garden to its former state. The resident mentioned that he could no longer enjoy the garden with his daughter.
  5. The landlord issued a stage 2 response on 20 February 2024, confirming its support for the resident to live alongside his neighbour. The landlord had previously given retrospective permission to his neighbour to carry out garden works. It acknowledged that the garden was a shared space for all residents to enjoy and, in response to concerns raised, stated its intention to write to all residents advising against altering the garden. The landlord also apologised for not handling the complaint per its procedure and offered £50 compensation.
  6. The resident remains unhappy with how the landlord dealt with the communal garden and would like the landlord to confirm in writing that it will restore the garden to its previous state.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

  1. The resident informed us that he wanted us to investigate the conduct of a staff member and requested that the landlord dismiss the staff member as a desired outcome. According to 42h of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, concern the terms of employment or other personnel issues or the ending of a service tenancy following the end of an employment contract. Therefore, we will not include this matter in our investigation. The resident has been informed of why this will not be investigated.

Scope of investigation

  1. The landlord’s internal complaints procedure investigated and responded to several issues related to antisocial behaviour (ASB). The resident has informed us that he is satisfied with the landlord’s approach to dealing with these aspects following a Community Trigger earlier this year, and therefore, we will not assess the landlord’s handling of the other aspects of his complaint.
  2. However, he has confirmed that he remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of his complaint relating to the communal garden. Therefore, our investigation has focused on and assessed the landlord’s handling of the outstanding issue.

Assessment

  1. The landlord’s website states that residents are not permitted to alter or improve communal areas. The landlord’s resident improvement procedure confirms that the landlord must give written permission before making improvements.
  2. On 14 November 2023 the resident raised concerns regarding the communal garden. The landlord addressed his concerns promptly by hiring an external company to clear the debris and pallets from the communal garden which was completed at the beginning of December 2023.
  3. After this, the evidence shows that the neighbour reported that the resident had stolen stones and slabs from the garden. The matter was reported to the police. The landlord stated that it had communicated to all parties the items that would be removed and could not explain why the neighbour reported the resident for theft. The landlord responded to the resident’s concerns about communicating the scope of work, and ultimately, the neighbour’s decision to report the matter to the police was outside of the landlord’s control.
  4. The resident said he felt unable to use the garden because the neighbour was watching him or was always in the garden watering plants. The landlord’s initial response did not clarify the position on the expectations of the residents in relation to looking after the communal garden. However, its published information confirms that residents cannot alter or improve communal areas. As such, the resident was upset that his neighbour had been able to make changes without consulting other residents. The landlord did not address his concerns or confirm that it had permitted his neighbour to complete works to the garden. The landlord missed the opportunity to outline its position. Understandably, the resident felt disappointed, especially since the neighbour had changed the communal garden, contrary to the landlord’s published information. The landlord’s failure to explain or outline a satisfactory resolution likely only added to the frustration caused.
  5. In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord admitted that it had previously permitted the neighbour to do garden work. We are unsure when this permission was granted or why permission was given, which was contrary to its published information. But since it did, at the time of giving permission, it should have informed all the residents as to what changes it had permitted so that they were aware and could understand the landlord’s position on this matter. This could have minimised some of the frustration and distress experienced by the resident.
  6. Given the concerns raised and acknowledged, it was appropriate for the landlord to confirm that the garden should not be altered. The landlord explained that letters would be sent to all residents regarding the matter. We have not seen evidence that this was done.
  7. Additionally, the landlord’s response did not fully address the resident’s concerns. It did not explain why permission had been granted initially or clarify whether the garden would be restored to its previous state, as the resident had requested. If it did not intend to restore the garden, it should have explained its reasoning. Furthermore, it failed to clarify the responsibilities of the resident and his neighbour regarding their garden, to better manage expectations and responsibilities in the future.
  8. The landlord did not demonstrate that it learned from the complaint or identify steps it could take to prevent similar complaints in the future. Additionally, it did not consider compensating the resident for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the matter, despite the resident feeling unable to use the shared garden during this time.
  9. We have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling and have considered the landlord’s compensation policy alongside our remedies guidance when assessing compensation. The landlord’s compensation policy considers awards of up to £250 for a medium impact where a failure has caused distress and inconvenience for the resident. Therefore, compensation of £250 has been awarded to reflect the distress and inconvenience that was caused to the resident.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the changes made by the neighbour to the communal garden.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Apologise in writing to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
    2. Pay the resident compensation of £250 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the changes to the communal garden.
    3. If it has not already done so, contact the resident and confirm its intention to restore the garden to its original condition (as agreed during the Community Trigger meeting) and provide a date for completion.
    4. The landlord should review how it handles permissions relating to shared gardens to avoid future disputes and consider providing further training and/or guidance to staff to ensure matters like these are handled fairly and transparently, in line with its policies.
    5. The landlord should provide evidence of compliance to our Service, also within 4 weeks.