Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

Notting Hill Genesis (NHG) (202115868)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202115868

Notting Hill Genesis

19 May 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about:
    1. The pest infestation at the property.
    2. The landlord’s handling of repairs at the property including the loss of access to rooms and the kitchen due to delays in completing the work.
    3. The level of compensation offered.
    4. The washing machine not working.
    5. The resident’s request for a transfer.

Determination (Jurisdiction decision)

  1. 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.
  2. After carefully considering all the evidence, we have determined that the all of the complaint, as set out above, are not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Summary of events

  1. The resident is an assured shorthold tenant of the landlord at the property, with a tenancy start date of 29 September 2012. The property is owned by a private landlord who leases it to the landlord.
  2. The tenancy agreement confirms that the property was provided as temporary accommodation under the homelessness legislation (Part VII Housing Act 1996). The local authority, to which the resident made her homeless application is in a different borough, had discharged its homelessness duty to provide temporary accommodation via the landlord who manages the property.
  3. The resident contacted the landlord in April 2021 to raise issues with mice in the property. The landlord made arrangements for a pest controller to attend the property and due to the layout of the existing kitchen the property owner agreed to a refit of the kitchen.
  4. The resident contacted the landlord on 13 July 2021 to explain she had not been consulted about her availability on choosing a suitable date. Due to her relationship with the property owner breaking down she asked that all communication with the owner was made through the landlord. This was agreed.
  5. The resident contacted the landlord on 19 August 2021. She wished to continue with the complaint she had raised on 13 July 2021. The resident explained that whilst the kitchen work had been completed there had been issues including a missed appointment and that her washing machine would no longer drain. She explained the owner’s actions had almost caused her to lose her place on the homeless bidding list with the local authority.
  6. The resident explained that a domestic engineer had identified the issue with the washing machine was that a drain cap had been left fitted on the sink drain. The resident considered she was entitled to compensation in relation to the matter including the call out fee to repair the machine.
  7. The landlord issued the stage one response on 27 August 2021. It explained there was no scope for cover for the washing machine or the missed appointment or time taken for the kitchen refit. In terms of the latter two issues the works were carried out by the property owner and not it.
  8. The resident requested the matter be escalated to stage two of the landlord’s complaints process on 7 September 2021. She explained that repairs were raised via the landlord and therefore damage to personal belongings should be handled by it. In terms of her request for a transfer she explained she had arrears on her account which could impact an application. She asked if the landlord could make an exception given her health concerns in allowing the transfer with the local authority to proceed.
  9. The landlord issued its stage two response on 1 October 2021. It made a goodwill offer of £30 which was not accepted. It maintained that any loss of facilities and the missed appointment were as the result of work carried out not by it but by the property owner, for which it was not liable. It added that the issue of the pest infestation had involved a number of treatments from pest controllers and the ordering and fitting of a new kitchen, all of which took time. In terms of the washing machine it added that this had not been provided by the property owner  but by the resident who was responsible for it.

Reasons

  1. Paragraph 42 (k) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not consider complaints that, in his opinion ‘fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint handling-body’.
  2. The landlord has confirmed that whilst the resident has been at the property since 2012, it still considers the resident to be in temporary accommodation.
  3. Complaints in relation to the management of temporary accommodation are within the remit of the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO). In the event of an unresolved dispute, the LGSCO has the authority to investigate the matter. As such, this complaint is considered outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
  4. The resident’s tenancy status is also relevant to the complaint relating to her request for a transfer. The landlord has explained that it does not have a duty to re-house her and that if she wishes to seek re-housing via a transfer she would need to go back directly to the local authority who had nominated her and not it. In terms of whether the issue of any rent arrears preventing a transfer, this would be a matter for the local authority and not the landlord.
  5. Although the resident is an assured tenant, her being housed in accordance with Part VII of the Housing Act 1996, means that the complaint is not within the jurisdiction of this Service to consider. Complaints concerning applications for assistance under the homelessness legislation fall within the jurisdiction of the LGSCO.