Notting Hill Genesis (NHG) (202410174)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202410174

Notting Hill Genesis (NHG)

9 May 2025

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 the landlord’s handling of:
1. the level of rent increase in 2024.
2. the resident’s concerns about the lack of a housing officer and the landlord’s communication with her.
3. the associated complaint.

Background

The resident occupies a 3-bedroom, second-floor maisonette under an assured tenancy agreement.
On 29 February 2024 the resident complained that:
1. she had received an annual rent increase from the landlord which was scheduled to begin in April 2024. She said that she did not accept the rent increase was fair as the property was in disrepair.
2. though the rent increase letter said she should discuss any concerns with her housing officer she did not have one at the moment and she was unhappy with the landlord’s level of communication with her.
The resident later issued a letter of claim via a solicitor on 17 June 2024 for a disrepair claim, which covered the repair issues raised in her complaint. As of the date of this report there is no evidence proceedings have been issued.
On 11 November 2024 the landlord issued its stage 1 response. In this it:
1. said it calculated annual rent increases every April. It outlined that higher inflation had increased its costs and the rents its residents would need to pay. It said that the rent increase letter set out how she could appeal the annual rent increase.
2. accepted that the resident’s housing officer had changed multiple times and her current housing officer had also been out of the office for some time.
3. in line with the terms of her tenancy agreement she was required to pay the full rent and any compensation as part of the disrepair claim would be dealt with separately.
4. acknowledged there had been a delay in responding to her complaint and apologised for this.
5. offered the resident a total of £475 including:
  1. £250 for the resident’s inconvenience from the changes in her housing officer.
  2. £100 for the delay in responding to her stage 1 complaint.
The resident escalated her complaint on the same day. She told the landlord that the disrepair issues were ongoing and it was unfair for the landlord to have increased her rent. She said the lack of communication from the landlord over the past 11 months had caused her anxiety. She also said the previous housing officer had written a response to a complaint she had made in November 2023 and offered financial remedy that had the landlord had never sent to her. The resident later told the landlord she did not want it to respond to the repair issues as part of her complaint as she was intending to pursue this through the disrepair claim.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 16 December 2024. In this it:
1. reiterated its explanation about how the rent review had been calculated. It noted the resident had withheld her rent as part of the claimed disrepair and it would not comment on this because of the ongoing disrepair claim.
2. accepted there had been a number of changes in the resident’s housing officer which had delayed its responses to her queries. It agreed its communication with the resident had been poor.
3. agreed to pay the resident the compensation it had intended to offer from her previous complaint in December 2023 where it had drafted a response but not issued it.
4. increased its offer of compensation to £1,650 including:
  1. £950 for the previous complaint from December 2023.
  2. £350 for the resident’s inconvenience from the changes in her housing officer.
  3. £100 for poor communication.
The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and escalated her complaint to the Ombudsman on 18 December 2024. The resident said she considered the landlord’s offer of compensation did not reflect the impact its actions had on her.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

In line with paragraph 42.d. of the Scheme the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, concern the level of rent or service charge or the amount of the rent or service charge increase.
From the available records and our discussion with the resident her concern was that the rent increase was unreasonable based on the condition of the property. Whilst the Ombudsman may consider complaints such as whether a rent increase was calculated correctly or how it was collected the issue of whether a rent increase is fair or reasonable is not something we may investigate. Complaints that relate to the level, reasonableness, or liability to pay rent or service charges are within the jurisdiction of the First-Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) and the resident would be advised to seek legal advice if she wishes to proceed with a case.

Scope

The resident told us she did not want the Ombudsman to investigate her original complaint about the landlord’s handling of the repairs, as she is intending to pursue this through the courts as a disrepair claim. As such the Ombudsman has not investigated the landlord’s handling of the repairs.
As part of the resident’s complaint she said that she wanted the landlord to refund her rent as she said that 2 of the 3 bedrooms of the property are unusable because of damp. The landlord’s compensation policy sets out how it will consider requests for a rent refund if a room is made unusable due to a failure to carry out repairs. However, it is the Ombudsman’s view that we cannot adequately assess whether the landlord acted in line with its policy without investigating its handling of the repairs.
If the resident wishes to pursue the impact of the claimed disrepair on the usability of the 2 bedrooms as part of any disrepair claim, she should seek independent legal advice.

The landlord’s handling of resident’s lack of a housing officer and the landlord’s communication

The landlord’s resident handbook says that a housing officer is a tenant’s main point of contact for the landlord and will:
1. offer to visit the resident to clearly explain what the landlord can offer.
2. make sure the tenant understands their responsibilities under the tenancy agreement.
3. help the tenant resolve problems with the property or the tenancy, such as rent and repairs.
The landlord’s resident handbook says that if a tenant’s housing officer is not contactable it will redirect the resident to its customer service centre to provide assistance.
From the available records the resident wrote to the landlord on 29 February 2024 to explain that she had had no housing officer for several months. In her emails that day she said:
1. a surveyor had attended the property regarding the roof in December 2023 with a manager from the landlord’s staff. She asked to meet with the manager as she was unhappy that the work had not been followed up and that they had ignored her emails since the survey.
2. the rent increase letter from the landlord said she should discuss the rent increase with her housing officer before escalating an appeal to a tribunal. She said as she did not have a housing officer she wanted the landlord to record her disagreement.
3. she had made 2 complaints previously to the landlord and not received any reply.
Compared to its resident handbook the landlord’s response on 29 February 2024 was unreasonable as:
1. though it told the resident it was recruiting for someone to take over as housing officer for the resident’s area it did not give her advice about how she could raise issues with the property in the meantime.
2. its response to the resident’s query about the rent increase letter was that the process for appealing this was in the letter and she should follow that. It did not address if the resident could discuss the rent increase letter with someone else at the landlord considering she did not have a housing officer.
3. it told the resident it had passed the resident’s request for a meeting on but, from the available records, there is no evidence the landlord took further action. In line with the resident’s handbook it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have arranged for someone to visit the resident, in the absence of a housing officer for her area.
On 5 March 2024 the resident asked the landlord to arrange a meeting to discuss the planned rent increase. From the available records there is no evidence that the landlord responded to this request. This was inappropriate, the landlord should have either arranged to visit the resident in line with the resident handbook or, if this was not possible, explained to the resident what she should do if she disagreed with its decision.
On 13 May 2024 the resident wrote to the landlord’s new housing officer and said:
1. she had sent a number of complaints to the landlord which it had ignored.
2. the landlord had increased her rent despite telling it she disagreed with its decision and it had not arranged a meeting to discuss this as she asked.
3. the repair issues at the property were ongoing and the landlord had not carried out what it had previously agreed.
On 6 June 2024 the resident wrote to the landlord’s housing officer again to say the landlord was continuing to ignore her and she wanted a response. From the available records there is no evidence the landlord responded to either of the resident’s emails. This was inappropriate, in line with the resident’s handbook it should have helped the resident resolved the problems with the tenancy/property.
In its formal responses the landlord recognised that the changes with the resident’s housing officer and the absence of her current housing officer would have caused the resident inconvenience and delayed resolving her problems with the tenancy/property. It provided the resident with £350 in recognition of this inconvenience and a further £100 for ‘poor communication overall’. It explained it had changed its processes so, if a housing officer was away, residents would automatically be provided with details of who would handle their case whilst the housing officer was absent. It also told the resident that it had created an online portal to allow residents to make queries to the landlord directly.
In the Ombudsman’s view, compared to our guidance on remedies, the actions the landlord took were appropriate to put right the failings we have seen. As the resident has asked not to investigate the landlord’s handling of the repairs the impact of the failings we have seen would be limited to inconvenience and anxiety. Though there was a lack of communication with the resident over an extended period we do not see that this would meet the threshold for a significant or “severe-long term” impact in line with our guidance. Therefore, the effect of the failings seen on the resident would be consistent with that of maladministration, which the landlord’s offer of £450 is proportionate to address. The landlord also explained what action it had taken to reduce the likelihood of a similar situation occurring for another resident, which is consistent with what we would expect in line with our guidance on remedies.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints process. Its complaints policy says that it will respond to a stage 1 complaint within 10 working days of logging the complaint. It will respond at stage 2 within 20 working days of the resident escalating the complaint.
The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out the Ombudsman’s expectations for how landlords should handle complaints. The Code encourages landlords to adopt a positive complaint handling culture that enables them to resolve disputes, improve the quality of the service they provide, and ensure that complaints provide an opportunity for learning and improvement.
As set out previously, the resident told the landlord between 29 February 2024 and 6 June 2024 about her previous complaints and that she was unhappy with the landlord’s handling of the issues at the property. In line with the Code we would expect landlords to be able to recognise the difference between a service request and a complaint. Where a resident expresses dissatisfaction with the landlord’s service it must give the resident a choice to make a complaint. There is no evidence that the landlord acknowledged the resident’s dissatisfaction at this time or that it informed her of its complaint policy, this was inappropriate.
The resident contacted the Ombudsman for advice on 11 June 2024. We contacted the landlord on 26 September 2024 to inform it of the resident’s complaint. We asked it to acknowledge her complaint and then provide a stage 1 response to her by 17 October 2024. This should not have been necessary. The Ombudsman expects landlords to be able to handle complaints in a way that is consistent with its policy without our involvement.
The resident told the Ombudsman on 18 October 2024 that the landlord had not provided her with a response to her complaint. We contacted the landlord again and told it to respond by 11 November 2024.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 11 November 2024, 32 working days after the Ombudsman informed it of the complaint. From the available records there is no evidence the landlord formally acknowledged or defined the resident’s complaint before it issued the response. This was inappropriate as it was not consistent with the timescales of the landlord’s policy and the Code.
From the available records, following the resident’s escalation of her complaint on 11 November 2024, there is no evidence that the landlord contacted her to acknowledge this or define the complaint with her before the stage 2 response was issued. This was inappropriate, as it was not consistent with the requirements of the Code.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 16 December 2024, 25 working days after it received her complaint escalation. Had the landlord issued an acknowledgement within 5 working days of receipt, as it was required to in line with the Code, this would have been an appropriate timescale to issue the stage 2 response.
In terms of the content of the landlord’s stage 2 response:
1. the landlord accepted that the compensation offer of £950 from the resident’s previous complaint in December 2023 had not been issued. It agreed to provide this to the resident, as she asked in her escalation request. This was reasonable, as it was consistent with what we would expect in line with our guidance on remedies.
2. though the other parts of the compensation the landlord had offered at stage 1 were referred to, and increased, in the stage 2 response it did not mention the £100 it had offered for the delay in issuing the stage 1 response. It offered £100 for ‘poor communication overall’ though it did not specify this related to its handling of the resident’s complaint, in the Ombudsman’s view this remedy was for the resident’s complaint about the lack of a housing officer. As such the landlord did not acknowledge its failings in its handling of the resident’s complaint as part of the stage 2 response or offer a remedy for this. This was inappropriate, in line with the Code the landlord should have addressed all points of the complaint and provided clear reasons for its decisions.
In terms of putting things right the landlord apologised for the delay in its complaint handling at stage 1 and offered the resident £100. It also outlined how it had improved its complaints process so residents could submit complaints directly to its centralised complaints team rather than relying on a housing officer. It did not acknowledge the other complaint handling failings.
In the Ombudsman’s opinion, though the landlord made an offer of compensation, this was not proportionate to the failings identified in our investigation. As such we have made a finding of maladministration and ordered the landlord to provide additional financial remedy of £100

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 42.d. of the Scheme the resident’s complaint about the level of rent increase in 2024 is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to investigate.
In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Scheme there was reasonable redress by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s concerns about her lack of a housing officer and its communication with her.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord must within 28 days of this determination:
1. issue the resident with a written apology. The landlord must recognise its failings as identified in this report and the impact these had on the resident.
2. pay the resident £200 (inclusive of the £100 it previously offered) in recognition of the time and trouble of pursuing a complaint and the frustration caused by the failures in the landlord’s complaint handling.
3. provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance with these orders. The compensation should be paid directly to the resident and not used to offset any monies she may owe the landlord.

Recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord pay the resident the £450 it previously offered for its handling of the resident’s lack of a housing officer and its communication with her if it has not already done so.
The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord pay the resident the £950 it previously offered in relation to the resident’s previous complaint from December 2023 if it has not already done so. The finding of reasonable redress has been based on the landlord making these payments to the resident.
The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord conduct a review of this case to identify learning and improve working practices. This should include consideration of:
1. how the complaint handling failings occurred and how the landlord will make improvements to reduce the likelihood of a reoccurrence.
2. any staff training that may improve its future response to similar cases.