Notting Hill Genesis (NHG) (202123801)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202123801

Notting Hill Genesis (NHG)

30 October 2023

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

This complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Response to the resident’s request for a copy of its reasonable adjustment policy.
2. Response to the resident’s vulnerability and reasonable adjustment concerns.
3. Handling of the associated complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, a housing association. The resident’s tenancy commenced in December 2006. The property is a 2 bedroom flat. The resident advises that he has schizophrenia and dyslexia.

Scope

This Service acknowledges that the resident has concerns that he has been discriminated against by the landlord and about the impact of the landlord’s actions on his mental health. However, the Ombudsman cannot determine whether discrimination has taken place, as this is a legal term which is better suited to a court to decide. However, this report has considered whether the landlord responded fairly and appropriately to the resident’s concerns.
The Ombudsman also cannot draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on physical or mental health as assessment of fairness in such cases requires a level of expertise that this Service is unable to provide.
The resident may wish to seek independent advice with regard to any legal recourse he may have with regards to these matters.

Summary of events

On 10 February 2021, the resident emailed the landlord stating that he had been looking for some of its policies but could not find them on its website. The resident asked that he be provided with its:
1. Reasonable adjustment policy.
2. Harassment policy.
3. Disability and/or equality policy.
4. Vulnerable tenant policy.
5. Any other policy relevant to how NHG deal / treat tenants with disabilities.
Between 10 February and 26 March 2021, the resident continued to chase the landlord for its reasonable adjustment policy. During this time, the resident’s senior housing officer:
1. Advised the resident on 19 February 2021 that they were waiting for the communications team to send the policy and that they would chase them for it. The same day the resident confirmed that the safeguarding and hate incident policies that had been sent did not apply to him.
2. Advised the resident on 23 February 2021 that the reasonable adjustment policy had been taken down from the website, which was why they had been unable to send it. They would send it to the resident as soon as it had been reinstated.
3. Advised that that they did not have a disability/equality policy but did have an Equality, diversity and inclusion policy, and that they did not have a vulnerable tenant policy but did have a safeguarding policy.
4. Emailed the resident on the 5 March 2021 to advise that the reasonable adjustment policy was not up yet, but the communication team had reinstated the page on the website, for which they provided a link. They went on to explain that this was an extract from the new policy which would be launched soon.
5. Emailed the resident on 26 March 2021 to apologise that they still did not have an answer as to why the policy had been taken down, it was now on the website and that it would seem this was done in error.
On 26 March 2021, the resident logged a formal complaint with the landlord stating that it was unacceptable for him to have to wait such a significant time, and to chase for a reply, for what he said was ‘‘effectively a summary of the policy’’. The resident went on to say that, ‘‘just as before’’, the landlord was changing its statements and that it was ‘‘confusing and stressful’’ when all he was asking for was a copy of the reasonable adjustment policy that the landlord had informed the Ombudsman was available. The resident confirmed that the grounds of the complaint were that he had been subjected to disability discrimination and unfavourable treatment and that the landlord had failed to:
1. Provide the reasonable adjustment policy.
2. Clarify why it was taken down from the website.
3. Respond to communications within reasonable time frames.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 7 April 2021. The following day the landlord’s housing operations manager emailed the resident to explain that complaint was received to the on the 26 of ‘‘April’’ 2021. The housing operations manager went on to explain that the delay was due a mixture of Housing Officers having 5 working days to respond to emails, the bank holiday and annual leave. They apologised for this and asked for the full 10 working days to provide their response, which the resident agreed to. It was also agreed that they would discuss the complaint with the resident the following Thursday, as requested by him the previous day.
The landlord’s stage 1 response was issued on 26 April 2021, in which it:
1. Acknowledged that on 10 February 2021the resident had requested information on its reasonable adjustment policy and any other policy relevant to how it responds to residents with disabilities. It also acknowledged that there was a significant delay in providing him with the information requested and that, whilst his housing officer had kept him up to date for the most part, there had more recently been a lack of communication with him.
2. Said that it could see no evidence of disability discrimination or unfavourable treatment.
3. Agreed that the delay in its complaint response fell outside of its complaints procedure, for which it apologised and offered £25 compensation.
4. Acknowledged that it had failed to put a note on its system regarding his disabilities and noted that he had been assured by its Regional Head that she would make the housing operations manager aware of this but had not done so before going on sabbatical. The landlord acknowledged that it was distressing for the resident to have to learn that the updated information regarding his disabilities had not been shared, for which it apologised and offered £50 compensation. The landlord noted that it had asked if the resident was happy to disclose his disabilities now so it could update its system, but he had declined as the Regional Head should have completed the update.
The resident escalated his complaint on 27 April 2021, stating that the response had fallen short of the complaint that had been made and that some of the facts had been misconstrued and/or distorted. The same day, the landlord emailed the resident to confirm that his complaint had been escalated to stage 2 of the complaint procedure and to advise who would be the investigating manager. The resident replied the same day to say that it would not be appropriate for the nominated manager to review his complaint due to the concerns he had raised about them and asked that an alternative reviewer be allocated. The resident also said that an explanation for the delay in the landlord logging his original complaint had not been included in the stage 1 complaint response.
On 4 May 2021, the landlord emailed the resident to apologise for the delay in its response and to provide the name of another manager that had been appointed to provide the stage 2 response.
On 25 May 2021, the landlord emailed the resident to advise that the deadline for its stage 2 response had been extended to 23 June 2021, as it had not yet been advised of the resident’s grounds for a review. On 28 May 2021, the resident emailed the landlord to say that he required more time to provide written grounds.
Between 28 May 2021, and 26 August 2021, there were numerous emails between the resident and the landlord regarding the resident’s concerns and a further extension of the deadline for the landlord to issue its stage 2 response.
On 26 August 2021, the resident emailed the landlord to confirm that:
1. The stage 1 response acknowledged there was an unreasonable delay in providing the requested policy information but no explanation was provided, despite him having received a promise that it would do so.
2. It was untrue that he had been provided with the policy on 5 March 2021, and that what he had been provided with was an excerpt from the policy not the actual policy.
3. He had clearly explained the concerns he had regarding discrimination and victimisation during the phone call he had with the housing operations manager who had issued the stage 1 response. That the landlord continually ignored, and failed to properly investigate, the issues raised concerning discrimination despite previous assurances that the landlord was fully aware of his disabilities and that staff had been fully briefed and the system updated.
4. The resident said that he wanted the landlord to:
  1. Properly investigate his complaint including the issues of discrimination and victimisation that had been raised.
  2. To learn from the mistakes made and action definitive positive changes.
  3. To consider mental health awareness training for housing officers and management to ensure they are aware of the need to make reasonable adjustments for those with disabilities.
  4. To adequately compensate him for the hurt, distress and injury to feelings caused, and to have closure and realise from the ‘‘sustained bullying’’ that the landlord had subjected him to.
On 2 September 2021, the resident emailed the landlord to ask that it acknowledge his email and confirm by what date its final response would be issued. The landlord responded the same day to acknowledge the further details provided by the resident and that it expected the resident to receive its final response ‘‘before the weekend’’. The landlord also confirmed that an independent resident reviewer would be engaged in the stage 2 review.
The landlord issued its stage 2, and final response on 10 September 2021. In its final response the landlord said that it was sorry that the resident felt discriminated against and for the hurt, distress and injury to his feelings. However, an independent resident review of his complaint had been carried out which found no evidence of discrimination. The landlord said that it did not believe the actions of its staff nor any failure in service was a result of discrimination and that the outcome of the Stage 1 complaint was fair and reasonable.
The resident’s responded to the landlord the same day asking for clarification as to the other points of his complaint. The resident said that if the landlord was refusing to address them, that the landlord should let him know and explain why. The resident also said that it would be helpful if the landlord’s response could follow the points of the complaint that was raised so that it was clear what the finding were for each aspect and that this was not clear from what the landlord had provided.
The resident referred his complaint to this service on 1 May 2022, explaining that the reasons why he remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response were that the landlord had:
1. Failed to provide a copy of the same policy that it had informed the Ombudsman was available.
2. Failed to address all the complaint points raised.
3. Subjected him to unfair treatment, discrimination and bullying.

Assessment and findings

Relevant legislation, standards and policies.

The Equality Act 2010 provides a legislative framework to protect the rights of individuals and to advance equality of opportunity for all. Under the Act the landlord had a legal duty to make reasonable adjustments where there is a provision, criterion or practice which puts a disabled person at a substantial disadvantage in relation to a relevant matter in comparison with persons who are not disabled.
The Social Housing Regulator’s Tenant Involvement and Empowerment Standard requires registered providers to “treat all tenants with fairness and respect” and “demonstrate that they understand the different needs of tenants, including in relation to the equality strands and tenants with additional support needs” with a specific expectation that providers will “demonstrate how they respond to those needs in the way they provide services and communicate with tenants”.
The Housing Ombudsman Complaints Handling Code 2020 states that landlords should comply with the Equality Act 2010, and may need to adapt normal policies, procedures, or processes to accommodate an individual’s needs. Landlords shall have a reasonable adjustments policy in place to address this.
The landlord’s Equality, Diversity and Inclusion policy, approved on 24 February 2021 and effective from 25 March 2021, refers to reasonable adjustments, stating that it will aim to provide services that are accessible to all who require them, including ensuring that local officers get to know their residents and their individual needs, and tailoring its services to meet the individual circumstances of its residents.
The landlord has a two stage complaints policy which states that the landlord will provide its written response within 10 working days at stage 1 and within 20 working days at stage 2. At both stages the policy states that in exceptional circumstances the timescales may need to be changed, in these cases the landlord will agree a new timescale with the resident. At stage 2 the resident has the option to have their complaint reviewed by an independent reviewer from a pool of residents.

Assessment

Response to the resident’s request for a copy of its reasonable adjustment policy.

Whilst reasonable adjustments may be referred to in its Equality, Diversity and Inclusion policy, the landlord should also have a separate Reasonable Adjustments Policy in place which should apply across its services, as set out in this services Complaint Handling Code.
It is good practice for landlords to ensure that their reasonable adjustment policy is easily accessible for both their staff and residents. This ensures that its staff have a clear understanding of what actions they are required to take in response to a request for a reasonable adjustment from a resident. It also ensures that its residents understand and feel confident in what they can expect from the landlord were they to make such a request.
That the landlord was unable to provide the resident with a copy would suggest that either it did not have a separate reasonable adjustments policy at that time or that there was a lack of training and understanding within the organisation regarding the policy and where it could be located. That the policy was not on the website should not have prevented the landlord having a copy on its system that it could share with the resident, and that its staff could refer to in order to ensure that they followed the correct procedure were a request to be made.
Given the landlord’s failure to appropriately respond to the resident’s request it is understandable that he felt that that the landlord was not taking his concerns seriously, that he was being treated unfavourably and led to doubts about the landlord’s commitment to providing any reasonable adjustments he may need to request.
The landlord advised this service on 10 October 2023 that, whilst it has systems where reasonable adjustments can be recorded, it is currently in the process of forming a new policy which would offer further support to staff and respond to requests for a reasonable adjustment. Whilst this is welcome, there remains no evidence of the resident having been provided with a copy of the full policy and this service has been unable to locate a copy of a current reasonable adjustment policy on the landlord’s website.
As a result, the failings identified, a finding of maladministration has been made and the landlord has been ordered not only to apologise to the resident and to pay him £150 compensation but also, within 6 weeks of the date of this report, to provide both this service and the resident with a full copy of its new reasonable adjustments policy. The landlord is also, within the same six weeks to ensure that its new reasonable adjustment policy is easily accessible on its website and to confirm to this service what further support it intends to offer its staff with regards tothis policy.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s vulnerability and reasonable adjustment concerns.

This service has had sight of the evidence from the resident requesting reasonable adjustments by the landlord as early as 2018 and of his repeatedly advising the landlord, by email and as early as January 2021, of his disability and mental health concerns and asking how the landlord was taking these into consideration. The resident continued to signpost the landlord to his vulnerabilities on multiple occasions throughout the period covered by the report and expressed concerns that the landlord was treating him unfairly.
Given that the resident had advised the landlord of his vulnerabilities, the landlord would be expected under both the Equality Act 2010 and the Social Housing Regulator’s Tenant Involvement and Empowerment Standard, to demonstrate that it had taken steps to ensure that it understood his needs and that it had respond to those needs in the way it provided its services and communicated with him.
However, there is no evidence of the landlord taking any steps to seek an understanding of the resident’s vulnerabilities or what reasonable adjustments it may need to take in response until his discussion with the Regional Head referred to in the correspondence related to this complaint. No evidence has been seen of when this happened or what was agreed, however, that the conversation had taken place and that the Regional Head had failed to share the information they had been provided with was confirmed by the landlord’s its stage 1 response.
Given the significance of this failure it was appropriate for the landlord to apologise to the resident and to acknowledge the distress caused to him having learnt that the updated information regarding his disabilities had not been shared. However, the apology and £50 compensation offered was not proportionate to the level of this failure. It is acknowledged that the landlord said in its stage 1 response that it had asked the resident if he wanted to disclose his vulnerabilities again, but he declined. However, given that the resident had already provided this information, and as there was no reference in its response to what steps the landlord might take were the resident to disclose that information, beyond updating its system, its response did not go far enough.
The landlord’s final response was the opportunity to consider this matter further however, no mention was made in that response, despite the resident continuing to raise concerns about its approach to reasonable adjustments in his escalation request.
In its submission to this service, on 16 October 2022 the landlord said that it had now updated its system to reflect the feedback that the resident had provided. Whilst it is welcome that the landlord has now updated its system, this was not a reasonable amount of time for the resident to have to wait for the landlord to have done so, given that this service has had sight of evidence of the resident advising the landlord of his vulnerabilities as early as 2018.
The landlord’s response to this service also indicated that it had made a decision as to as to how it would respond to the resident’s disclosed vulnerabilities rather than evidencing that it had listened and responded to the views of the resident. The same correspondence also stated that the resident’s vulnerabilities were not known, which was clearly not the case.
Given the failings identified in relation to this element of the resident’s complaint a finding of maladministration has been made for which the landlord has been ordered to pay the resident a total of £200, inclusive of the £50 offered in its stage 1 response. The landlord has also been ordered to liaise with the resident to ensure that its records correctly reflect his vulnerabilities and that it gains an understanding of what reasonable adjustments he may require.
It is acknowledged that the resident feels strongly that the landlord has subjected him to bullying. However, whilst it is evident that there were failures by the landlord in respect of his request for a copy of its reasonable adjustment policy and in how it responded to his reports of his vulnerabilities, which were understandably distressing for the resident, given the scope of this investigation it has not been possible for this service to determine whether the landlord’s actions, or inactions, amounted to bullying.

Handling of the associated complaint

The resident logged his formal complaint on 26 March 2021. According to the landlord’s complaints policy the landlord should have issued its stage 1 response by 9 April 2021.
There was a delay in the landlord acknowledging the complaint, it not doing so until 7 April 2021, 2 days before the stage 1 response was due. This was recognised by the landlord in its acknowledgement and an explanation for the delay provided, the landlord stating that this was due a mixture of Housing Officers having 5 working days to respond to emails, the bank holiday and annual leave, for which it apologised. The landlord asked that it have the full 10 working days to provide its response, which would have meant that it should have issued its response by 21 April 2021.
However, it did not provide its stage 1 response until 26 April 2021, 3 working days after the extended deadline and some 21 working days after the resident logged his complaint on 26 March 2021. In its final response the landlord acknowledged this delay for which it offered the resident £25 compensation.
The resident initially escalated his complaint on 27 April 2021, providing confirmation of the outstanding issues on 26 August 2021.
During this time there were numerous emails between both parties and an extension agreed. The resident raised concerns that the landlord had discriminated against him, that a number of issues had not been responded to in the landlord’s stage 1 response, that the landlord had acknowledged but not explained the reason for the delay in its stage 1 response, that it was untrue that he had been provided with the policy on 5 March 2021, that the landlord was fully aware of his disabilities and that he had been assured that staff had been fully briefed and the system updated.
According to the landlord’s complaints policy the landlord should have issued its final response within 20 working days, which it did, issuing the response on 10 September 2021. However, whilst the landlord made reference to the resident’s allegations of discrimination in its response, stating that these had been investigated and no evidence of discrimination found, the landlord failed to make any mention of the other issues the resident had specifically raised in his escalation request.
This was not in accordance with this service’s complaint handling code which states that landlords must address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions, referencing the relevant policy, law and good practice where appropriate. This is to ensure that the resident can have the confidence that the landlord has listened to their concerns and taken those concerns seriously. That the landlord failed to address all the points raised by the resident in this case resulted in unnecessary frustration for the resident and in the resident considering whether the landlord was simply refusing to address his concerns.
As a result of the unreasonable delay in the landlord issuing its stage 1 response and that the landlord failed to address all the concerns raised by the resident in his escalation request, a finding of maladministration has been made and the landlord ordered to pay the resident a further £150, inclusive of the £25 offered in its stage 1 response.
The landlord has also been ordered to carry out a review of the complaint handling failures identified in this report to ensure that similar failings do not happen in the future and to ensure that its processes are in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s request for a copy of its reasonable adjustment policy.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of how it responded to the resident’s vulnerability and reasonable adjustment concerns.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the associated complaint.

Reasons

Whilst the landlord acknowledged that there were unreasonable delay in it providing the resident with a copy of its reasonable adjustment policy, the landlord failed to respond to the resident’s continued concerns that the information he had been provided with was an excerpt and not the policy itself. There is no evidence of the resident having been provided with a copy of the full policy and this service has been unable to locate a copy of a current reasonable adjustment policy on the landlord’s website.
The compensation offered by the landlord for its Regional Head’s failure to share the information the resident had provided regarding his vulnerabilities was not proportionate to the level of this failure nor the impact the failure had on the resident. The landlord has also failed to evidence that it subsequently took reasonable steps to seek an understanding of the resident’s vulnerabilities or what reasonable adjustments it may need to take in response.
There was a delay in the landlord acknowledging the resident’s formal complaint which led to a knock-on delay in it providing its stage 1 response. Whilst the landlord made reference to the resident’s allegations of discrimination in its final response, stating that these had been investigated and no evidence of discrimination found, it failed to address all points raised in the complaint, which it would be expected to do in accordance with this service’s Complaint Handling Code.

Orders

That within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Apologise to the resident for the failures identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident a total of £500 compensation, made up of:
  1. £150 in respect of its failures with regards to his request for a copy of its reasonable adjustment policy.
  2. £200 in respect of its failures with regards to its response to his vulnerability and reasonable adjustment concerns, this is inclusive of the £50 previously offered if this has not already been paid.
  3. £150 for its complaint handling failures, this is inclusive of the £25 previously offered if this has not already been paid.
3. Liaise with the resident to ensure that its records correctly reflect his vulnerabilities and to seek an understanding of what reasonable adjustments he may require.
4. Review the complaint handling failures identified in this report. The landlord is then to confirm to this service what steps it has taken to ensure that similar failings do not happen in the future, such as staff training and ensuring that its processes are in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.
That within 6 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is to provide both this service and the resident with a copy of its new reasonable adjustments policy. The landlord is also, within the same 6 weeks to ensure that its new reasonable adjustment policy is easily accessible on its website and to confirm to this service what further support it intends to offer its staff with regards to recording and responding to request it receives for reasonable adjustments.
The landlord is to confirm that it has complied with the above orders in line with the timescales set out above.