Notting Hill Genesis (202000089)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202000089

Notting Hill Genesis

18 December 2020

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 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 response to:
1. The resident’s reports of decant works not being resolved when she returned to her property.
2. The resident’s claim for £4000 for emotional distress, the inconvenience and the implications of the mould on her health.
3. The resident’s concerns about an unknown person gaining access to her property whilst she was decanted and her safety when she returned to the property.
4. The resident’s request to be transferred to another property.
5. The resident’s reports of her sofa being ‘‘very dirty’’ when it was returned from storage.
This complaint is also about the landlord’s complaint handling.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.

The resident’s reports of decant works not being resolved when she returned to her

property.

On 28 June 2018, the resident’s solicitor submitted a Letter of Claim to the landlord regarding disrepair related to damp and the growth of mould and at the resident’s property. On 15 October 2018, an independent surveyor carried out an inspection of the resident’s property following a disrepair claim by the resident. On 9 February 2019 the resident was decanted in order for the work recommended in that report to be carried out. When the resident returned to the property on 9 May 2019, she complained that there were outstanding works still to be completed and expressed concerns about the standard of the works that had been carried out.
In its final response to the resident’s complaint, dated 8 February 2020, the landlord explained that its Disrepair policy stated that whilst reports may initially be recorded and handled as a complaint, where it is clear there is disrepair, the complaint will be closed and the matter dealt with as a disrepair case in line with our internal procedures. The landlord confirmed that as the issues had been raised with it via the resident’s solicitor, these had been treated as a disrepair case, and her complaint closed.
Paragraph 39(h) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman cannot consider complaints that concern matters that are, or have been, the subject of legal proceedings and where a resident has or had the opportunity to raise the subject matter of the complaint as part of those proceedings.
It is not disputed that the resident commenced legal proceeding against the landlord, in respect of their resident’s solicitor Letter of Claim submitted to the landlord on 28 June 2018.
Under the Ministry of Justice’s Pre-Action Protocol for Housing Disrepair Cases, should a claim proceed to litigation, the court will expect all parties to have complied with the Protocol as far as possible. The Protocol includes issues relating to the standard of repairs and the court has the power to order parties who have unreasonably failed to comply with the Protocol to pay costs or be subject to other sanctions.
Given the above, I am satisfied that the resident will have the opportunity to raise the subject matter of his complaint as part of his legal proceedings and as such, under paragraph 39(h) of the Scheme, this complaint is not one that can be considered by the Ombudsman.

The resident’s claim for £4000 for emotional distress, the inconvenience and the

implications of the mould on her health.

The resident was seeking £4000 for emotional distress, the inconvenience and the implications of the mould on her health. The landlord advised that this aspect of the resident’s complaint would be best considered as a possible personal injury claim, via it’s Insurers. The landlord provided their Insurance team’s contact details should the resident wish to contact them.
Whilst I appreciate that this matter has caused the resident a great deal of upset and distress, which the resident has expressed concerns about being longer term, the Ombudsman is not able to determine matters of liability or causation and does not award damages in the way that a court might. Further, under paragraph 39(i) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, this Service will not consider complaints which would be more reasonably dealt with via another organisation or procedure. As advised by the landlord in its response of 3 March 2020, the resident’s concerns about the (longer term) impact on her health would be better dealt with as a personal injury claim.

Background and summary of events

Background

The tenant is an assured tenant of the landlord. The tenancy commenced on 26 March 2014.
The property is a ground floor flat in a converted detached house.
On 9 February 2019 the resident was decanted in order for the works, related to a disrepair claim, to be carried out.
The resident has provided evidence that she attended sessions with NHS ‘Improving Access to Psychological Therapies’ (IAPT) services for what she described as ‘‘feeling anxious and frightened after an intruder entered her flat’’.

Summary of events

In an email to the landlord, dated 17 April 2019, the resident asked to raise a formal complaint regarding the landlord’s contractors. She stated that, on 9 February 2019, she had been decanted so the contractors could treat damp. The resident said she had been in contact with the contractors throughout the works and had been told that the work had been completed. The resident said that when she returned to the property to check, she said that she could see somebody had been smoking in the property and had left a lot of mess, including: her bed being moved into the kitchen, which appeared to have been recently slept in; a cup of tea and cutlery left in the kitchen; and cigarette ends left in the sink. The resident said that when she spoke with the contractors, they said that it appeared a man had been sleeping in the property and they had witnessed him leave one morning. The resident said that she wished to raise a formal complaint because:
1. She was not informed that a stranger had been living in her home to allow her to report this to the police;
2. The contractors’ reason given for not informing her was that they assumed it was the resident’s relative; and
3. The contractors reported that there was no sign of a break in at the property and only she and the contractors had keys, raising the question of whether the property was secured by the contractors properly.
On 24 April 2019, the resident advised the landlord that she had attended her flat again that day to collect her mail and noticed that her kitchen and bedroom windows were open, and so called the police. The resident said that a neighbour had also informed her that they had seen a man leaving the property. The resident stated that, due to the contractor’s negligence, she felt too unsafe to return to the property.
In the landlord’s Stage 1 response, of 30 April 2019, it explained that, when its contractors found a person in the resident’s home one morning, there was nothing untoward about the individual’s behaviour or appearance, so as to arouse suspicion. The landlord did not confirm what date this was. The landlord said that the reference to him being a ‘black male’ was purely descriptive and the contractor and landlord did not know how access was gained. The landlord said that the contractor given it assurances that they had addressed the issues of security, the works at the property were nearing completion and that the landlord would like the resident to move back into her home on 7 May 2019. The landlord said that its contractor had been instructed to make an appointment with the resident on 7 May 2019 to change the locks to the property in the resident’s presence and to hand her all of the keys to the new locks. The landlord said that it believed that this mitigated the risk of an unauthorised person gaining access to the property.
Regarding the resident’s request for a transfer to another property, the landlord noted that its Neighbourhood Manager had outlined the options available to her, should she want to move to a different property after returning to her home on 7 May 2019. The landlord said that these included a Direct Offer, which the landlord explained was where a tenant faces an imminent risk by remaining in their home. The landlord explained that the case would be considered by housing management, who would decide whether the case should be accepted. The landlord also suggested a mutual exchange or an internal transfer, which would require the resident to complete medical forms for assessment by its independent medical assessment
The resident remained unhappy with the response and, on 1 May 2019, gave the landlord her reasons for this. The resident said that:
1. She disagreed that the contractor’s comment regarding the race of the intruder was purely descriptive because he stated that he thought this person was the resident’s relative or friend due to his race.
2. She wanted a written apology from the contracting company for its failures to comply with its policies and procedures and to notify her of the intruder.
3. Additionally, the contractors stated they had addressed the security of the property but, when passing the property on 30 April 2019, the resident noticed that the kitchen window was open again. A police officer was unable to attend immediately, and the resident needed to leave.
4. She was concerned that the intruder knew her identity because there were photos of her and her son stored away in the cupboards, leaving the resident feel unsafe in the area.
5. Because it was unknown how the intruder entered, she was concerned that the intruder would be able to still access the property if the locks were changed.

For these reasons, the resident said that she would not stay in the property but would attend on 7 May 2019 to collect her remaining belongings. It is understood that, on the same day, the resident spoke with the landlord and ‘‘reluctantly’’ agreed to return to the property on 7 May 2019.

On 15 May 2019 the resident raised concerns with the landlord that when her sofa was returned from storage the previous day, it was very dirty. The landlord responded to the resident’s concerns stating that when the sofa was collected, it was recorded as already being soiled. In an email to the landlord, dated 23 August 2019, the resident expressed her dissatisfaction with the lack of response from the landlord regarding her soiled sofa. She said she had called the landlord on various occasions and disagreed that the sofa was soiled on collection, stating that she had proof.
The resident chased an update on her complaint on 29 August 2019.
The landlord responded on 4 September 2019, advising that the resident’s concerns regarding her sofa were not part of her original complaint, which had been escalated to review. The landlord explained that the review must focus on the issues highlighted in that complaint. However, it would discuss the resident’s concerns internally and see what it could do to help or advise. The resident acknowledged, on 5 September 2019, that the sofa was not mentioned in her original complaint but stated it had been raised previously.
The resident chased an update on her complaint on 20 November and 19 December 2019.
The landlord issued its final response on 8 February 2020. Regarding the unknown man seen at the resident’s property whilst she was decanted, the landlord noted that the man was not known to the contractor’s staff, and that they also did not know how access had been gained by the man. The landlord also noted that where the resident raised her concerns with the police, they found no signs of any forced entry into the property. The landlord said that the contractor denied the resident’s suggestion that access may have been gained as a result of them leaving windows or doors unsecure after leaving the property. The landlord said that it was unable to say with clarity how access may have been gained, or who the man was. The landlord said that it considered the actions taken to arrange to change the locks to the property, in the resident’s presence, and handing her the keys while with her, to be fair in addressing the resident’s concerns, and rendering her property secure.
Further, the landlord explained that its contractors advised that the man had been polite, appeared respectable, and had not behaved in a manner that raised any suspicions that his appearance in the property had been untoward or questionable in any way. The landlord also explained that due to there being no signs of any break-in or forced entry, the contractors assumed that he was there in some form of agreed or official capacity, and hadn’t questioned this. The landlord said that the contractors had felt there to be no need to question the man’s appearance in the property, so they hadn’t raised this as a concern at the time. The landlord reiterated that its contractor stated that their comments had not been in any way racially motivated, either inferred or implied, and that they had just provided a description to the resident of the man discovered in her home that morning. While the landlord said it accepted that the contractor had not wished to offend the resident in any way, it appreciated that the incident, and how the resident had received the contractor’s comments, had been a cause of great upset for her. The landlord said that the intruder appeared to have committed a criminal act in gaining entry into the property. The landlord went on to say that if there was anything it could consider as a failing, it would possibly be the delay in the contractor advising the landlord of discovering the man, although his behaviour had not caused concern to trigger this. While the landlord said it could not identify a specific service failure on this point, it offered the resident a discretionary payment of £250 in recognition of the upset caused overall.
The landlord noted that, because the resident explained that she no longer felt safe in her home and she wished to move to alternate accommodation, it had considered her request for a transfer. However, the request had been denied. The landlord explained that, as it found no evidence that would support any suggestion that the resident was at risk if she remained in the property, it agreed with its previous suggestions that she should consider available options for a possible mutual exchange. It added that the resident should also ask for advice in submitting documentation for a medical appeal panel review of her housing needs, as she had described her health concerns throughout the complaint. The landlord said that these would be considered, and the resident’s banding reviewed. Alternately, the landlord suggested that the resident may wish to present herself to her local authority and ask for their assistance in arranging emergency accommodation, or any other help they may be able to offer her with respect to her being rehoused.
The landlord said that it was sorry to read of the resident’s suggestions that her sofa had been soiled when it had been removed and returned to her home by its contracted removals team. The landlord said that the contractor’s collection sheets for 13 February 2019 noted that the sofa was soiled on collection. The landlord said that it was aware that the resident made contact to discuss and dispute this point on a number of occasions. The landlord advised the resident that if she remained dissatisfied with the feedback provided, she may wish to contact the contractor directly to pursue a complaint with them. While the landlord said it accepted no liability for this issue, it also said that it wished to offer some assistance as a gesture of goodwill, offering the resident £75 so that she could arrange for a professional cleaner to attend and clean the stains from her sofa.
The landlord noted that the resident had advised of two occasions, prior to the matters considered in this complaint, where appointments had been arranged for operatives to carry out works but the operatives had not turned up. The resident had not given further detail as to when these were, or who these were with. However, the landlord stated that it was sorry to learn of this and offered a discretionary payment of £60, at £30 per appointment.
The landlord said that it was also mindful of its delays in completing its review of the complaint, for which it apologised. In recognition of its failure to follow its timescales, it offered a further £125 as a gesture of goodwill.
In total the landlord offered the resident £510 compensation.
On 27 February 2020, the resident emailed the landlord to say that she was not satisfied with the £510 compensation offered by the landlord. The resident said that £510 ‘‘in no way shape or form covers the stress or inconveniences this situation has caused me’’. The landlord referred to damage to her clothes and furniture as the result of mould, which she said she was still living with, and the impact on her health. The resident said that she wanted a surveyor to inspect the property as she believed there to be ‘‘something seriously wrong’’ with it. The resident said that she was also seeking £1000 all of her items that were damaged and £4000 for ‘‘emotional distress, the inconvenience and the implications of the mould on my health and for (the landlord) failing to keep my home safe whilst I was decanted allowing an intruder to access and live at the property. In addition to the failure to follow (its) own policies regarding responding to my complaint within timescale.’’
On the 3 March 2020, the landlord responded to the resident’s email. The landlord said that it was sorry to hear that the issue had returned and that an appointment had been arranged for a surveyor to visit the resident’s property on 5 March 2020. The landlord also said that it had reconsidered the financial offer it had made in its final response and that it was ‘‘happy to consider increasing this to £1,000’’. The landlord explained that this sum was made up of:
1. £250 – In recognition of the inconvenience, distress and worry caused to the resident as a result of the incident where a man had been found at her home. The landlord notes that ‘‘although Police had noted no sign of forced entry or have been able to identify the person, and our contractors report leaving the property secure’’, it had again exercised discretion in applying the ‘goodwill for inconvenience/distress’ part of its Compensation policy in recognition of the upset caused to her.
2. The landlord also offered the resident a further gesture of goodwill of £365 for the inconvenience and distress caused.
3. £75 – As a gesture of goodwill which the landlord said would cover the cost of the resident having her sofa professionally cleaned, following her allegations that this had been placed on grass/dirty surface by operatives (The landlord explained that it had exercised its discretion in applying the ‘goodwill for inconvenience’ part of our Compensation policy here).
4. £250, increased from the £125 previously offered – In recognition of the inconvenience caused to you as a result of the delay in my concluding the review of your complaint and poor updating of progress (the landlord explaining that its Compensation policy advises up to £250 can be offered as a gesture of goodwill)
5. £60 – For two appointments the resident had told the landlord were missed (the landlord explaining that its Compensation policy suggests £30 per missed appointment).
The landlord explained that its compensation policy advises that the landlord would not offer compensation for damage to residents’ personal belongings where “there is damage that would ordinarily be covered by your own household insurance policies (contents, motor etc)”. The landlord advised the resident that she would need to discuss any possible claims for damage to your personal belongings with your home contents insurance provider in the first instance. Alternately, the landlord said that she may contact its Insurance team to ask for their assistance in submitting a claim to the landlord’s insurers. The landlord also provided the relevant e-mail address for that team.

Assessment and findings

The resident’s concerns about an unknown person gaining access to her property

whilst she was decanted and her safety when she returned to the property.

In February 2019, the resident was decanted so that works related to her disrepair claim could be carried out. During the decant period it was reasonable to expect that the landlord and their contractors would ensure that the resident’s property was kept safe and secure.
On returning to check her property during the decant period, the resident raised concerns with the contractors about her bed having been moved and that it appeared to have been slept in, a cup of tea and cutlery left in the kitchen, and cigarette ends left in the sink. Dissatisfied with the contractor’s response, the resident complained to the landlord on 17 April 2019. The resident said that she had not been informed that a stranger had been living in her home and that the delay had prevented her from reporting it to the police. The resident also said that the contractor had assumed that the intruder was a relative of hers because he was a black male. The resident said that the contractors reported that there was no sign of a break in at the property and only she and they had keys. The resident said that this raised the question of whether the property was secured by the contractors properly.
On 24 April 2019, the resident visited her property again and noticed that her kitchen and bedroom windows were open, and so called the police. The police found no evidence of forced entry. The resident told the landlord that a neighbour had also informed her that they had seen a man leaving the property. The resident told the landlord that, due to the contractor’s negligence, she felt too unsafe to return to the property.
Having been advised by the resident of an unknown person accessing her property, it was appropriate for the landlord to speak to its contractors about the concerns raised by the resident, which the landlord did, providing the resident with its response on 30 April 2019.
The landlord advised the resident that whilst its contractors had found a person in her property, the contractor had said that there was ‘‘nothing untoward about the individual’s behaviour or appearance, so as to arouse suspicion’’. Whilst that may have been the case, and whilst there was no sign of forced entry, given the resident had been decanted it would be unusual to then have someone staying in the property and therefore the landlord needs to ensure its contractors report anything unusual.
The landlord also said that the contractor had given it assurances that they had addressed the issues of security. However, the landlord did not provide the resident with any information about what that contractor had actually done, which may have provided the resident with more reassurance that this issue would not reoccur.
The landlord did however seek to provide reassurance to the resident that her property would be safe to return to by arranged for the locks to be changed, in her presence, prior to her moving back. The lock change took place on 7 May 2019 and the resident moved back into the property the same day.
The landlord also acted reasonably in its response to the resident’s concerns about the contractors referring to race describing the intruder. This it did by acknowledging the resident’s concerns and speaking to its contractors about the comments they had made. Following its discussion with the contractor the landlord advised the resident that it was satisfied that its contractor’s comments ‘‘had not been in any way racially motivated, either inferred or implied, and that they had just provided a description to the resident of the man discovered in her home that morning’’. Whilst it accepted that the contractor had not wished to offend the resident in any way, the landlord nevertheless said that it ‘‘appreciated that the incident, and how the resident had received the contractor’s comments, had been a cause of great upset for her.’’
In determining whether there has been service failure or maladministration we considered both the events that initially prompted a complaint and the landlord’s response to those events.
The extent to which a landlord recognised any shortcomings and the appropriateness of any steps taken to offer redress can be as relevant as the original mistake or service failure.
It was appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge that the inaction by the landlord’s contractors in respect of an unknown man being in her property, clearly caused distress to the resident and, despite replacing the locks at her property, the resident still remained concerned about her safety and security. It was also reasonable for the landlord to acknowledge that ‘‘if there was anything it could consider as a failing, it would possibly be the delay in the contractor advising the landlord of discovering the man, although his behaviour had not caused concern to trigger this’’. In recognition this and the upset caused the landlord offered the resident a discretionary goodwill payment of £250.
Following its final response, the landlord reviewed its position and, whilst it noted that the Police had noted no sign of forced entry and had been unable to identify the intruder, and that its contractors reported leaving the property secure, the landlord again exercised discretion and increased its previous offer of a £250 discretionary goodwill payment, by £365, to a total of £615.
Having considered all the circumstances of the case, I am satisfied that the landlord’s increased offer of £615 was fair and proportionate to the distress and inconvenience the resident experienced as result of a an unknown person gaining access to her property whilst she was decanted and her safety when she returned to the property.
This is because, whilst the landlord’s Compensation and Goodwill Gesture Policy is silent on specific values for good will payments, the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance suggests awards between £250 and £700 for cases where the Ombudsman has found considerable service failure or maladministration. I have also taken into account the steps the landlord took to reassure the resident of her security when returning to the property by changing the locks, in the presence of the resident, prior to her returning to the property.

The resident’s request to be transferred to another property.

The landlord’s Lettings and Allocation Policy provides for a number of routes by which a tenant might be rehoused. These include local authority Choice based lettings (CBL), Transfer, Management transfers and Direct offers. The Policy also refers to Mutual Exchange.
As the resident had told the landlord that she no longer felt safe in her home and she wished to move to alternate accommodation, it was appropriate for the landlord to advise her of the options that might be available to her. It was also appropriate for the landlord to consider the resident’s request for a transfer.
The landlord’s Letting’s and Allocation Policy says that the landlord will consider transfer requests from tenants who wish to move from their current home because it is no longer suitable for their needs. However, the policy also states that a resident would need to provide evidence that they were facing an imminent risk by remaining in their home. In its final response, the landlord advised the resident that her transfer request had been denied as it had found ‘‘no evidence that would support any suggestion that the resident was at risk if she remained in the property’’. Whilst I appreciate that an unknown intruder gaining access to her property caused the resident a great deal of distress, having not been provided with evidence that she was facing an imminent risk by remaining in the home, I am satisfied that the landlord acted in accordance with its Letting’s and Allocation Policy in declining the residents transfer request.
Although it declined the resident’s transfer request, the landlord went on to explain to the resident what her other options were with regards to moving to another property. These included a possible mutual exchange and that the resident may wish to submit documentation for a medical appeal panel review of her housing needs, as she had described her health concerns throughout the complaint. The landlord said that these would be considered, and the resident’s banding reviewed. The landlord also suggested that the resident may wish to present herself to her local authority and ask for their assistance in arranging emergency accommodation, or any other help they may be able to offer her with respect to her being rehoused.

The resident’s reports of her sofa being ‘‘very dirty’’ when it was returned from storage.

Section 5.3 of the landlord’s Compensation and Goodwill Gesture Policy states that the landlord encourages resident’s to take out their own home contents insurance policy to cover for damage to their personal effects, such as but not limited to, furniture and furnishings. The policy goes on to say that in the event that the resident believes the landlord is at fault, a liability claim can be made where negligence will need to be proven.
Whilst not raised as part of the resident’s initial complaint, the landlord nevertheless investigated the resident’s allegations, of 15 May 2019, that her sofa was ‘‘very dirty’’ when it was returned from storage.
Having established that the contractor’s collection sheets for 13 February 2019 noted that the sofa was soiled on collection, having no evidence to the contrary, it was reasonable for the landlord to not uphold the resident’s complaint as her allegations had not been proven. Nevertheless, the landlord offered the resident £75 as a gesture of goodwill, so that she could arrange for a professional cleaner to attend and clean the stains from her sofa. The landlord advised the resident that if she remained dissatisfied with the feedback provided, she may wish to contact the contractor directly to pursue a complaint with them.

The landlord’s complaint handling.

The landlord Comments, complaints and compliments Policy states that the landlord has a two stage complaints process. The policy states that the landlord will contact the complainant within two working days from the date it receives their complaint to establish what resolution they are seeking and to agree a timescale. The policy goes on to say that the landlord will issue its Stage 1 response within 10 working days from the date the complaint is received.
The resident logged her formal complaint on 17 April 2019 and the landlord issued its Stage 1 response, in accordance with its Complaints policy, nine working days later on 30 April 2019.
On 1 May 2019 the resident contacted the landlord to say that she was dissatisfied with its response at Stage 1 and wished her complaint to escalated to Stage 2.
The landlord Comments, complaints and compliments Policy states that where complaint has been escalated to Stage 2, a further written response would be issued within 20 working days from the date the review request was received. As the resident had requested a review on 1 May 2019, the landlord should have issued its Stage 2, and final response, on 29 May 2019.
Despite the resident chasing an update on her complaint on 29 August 2019, 20 November and 19 December 2019, the landlord failed to issue its final response until 8 February 2020. In its final response the landlord acknowledged and apologised to the resident for its delays in completing its review of the complaint, and offered the resident £125 as a gesture of goodwill for its acknowledged service failures.
Subsequent to its final response, the landlord wrote to the resident again on the 3 March 2020, following a review of her complaint, increasing its previous offer of a goodwill payment from £125 to £250. The landlord said that this was in recognition of the inconvenience caused to the resident as a result of the delay in it concluding its review of her complaint and poor updating of progress.
Having reviewed the evidence I am satisfied that the £250 goodwill payment is fair and proportionate and provides the resident with reasonable redress for the landlord’s acknowledged complaint handling failures. The is because the landlord explained to the resident in its final response that its Compensation policy allows for up to £250 to be offered as a gesture of goodwill. £250 is also the maximum level of compensation suggested in this service’s Remedies Guidance for complaints where there has been service failure resulting in some impact on the resident, but which was of short duration and may not have significantly affected the overall outcome for the resident.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was reasonable redress by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s concerns about an unknown person gaining access to her property whilst she was decanted and her safety when she returned to the property.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no service failure by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s request to be transferred to another property.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no service failure by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s reports of her sofa being ‘‘very dirty’’ when it was returned from storage.
In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was reasonable redress by the landlord for its acknowledged service failures in respect of its complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord acknowledged and apologised to the resident for delays in identifying that an unknown person gained access to her property while she was decanted. The landlord changed the locks on the resident’s property to seek to reassure her regarding her safety and offered the resident a goodwill payment of £615 which was fair, proportionate and offered reasonable redress for the distress she experienced.
The landlord acted appropriately following the resident’s request to move to alternate accommodation. Having been told by the resident that she no longer felt safe in her home, it was appropriate and in accordance with its Letting’s and Allocation Policy for the landlord to consider the resident for a transfer. Having not been provided with evidence that the resident was facing an imminent risk by remaining in her home, it was appropriate and in accordance with its policy for the landlord to decline the resident’s transfer. Having done so, it was also appropriate for the landlord to then explain what other options were available to the resident should she still wish to move.
The landlord investigated the resident’s allegations that her sofa was ‘‘very dirty’’ when returned from storage. Having established that the contractors notes on collection had recorded that the sofa was soiled, and with no evidence to the contrary, it was reasonable for the landlord to not uphold the resident’s complaint. Nevertheless, as a gesture of goodwill the landlord offered the resident £75 towards having her sofa professionally cleaned.
The landlord acknowledged and apologised to the resident for its complaints handling failures and offered the resident a goodwill payment of £250 which was fair, proportionate and offered reasonable redress for its service failure.

Recommendations

If it has not done so already, that within 6 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord pay the resident the £1,000 it offered the resident in its letter of 3 March 2020.