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

Notting Hill Genesis (NHG) (202200847)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202200847

Notting Hill Genesis

22 June 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 handling of the resident’s bid on property.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord.
  2. The resident lives in a two-bedroom mid storey flat, with adaptations to accommodate the resident’s walking aid and his wife’s wheelchair.
  3. The resident states that his current home is unsuitable for himself and his family on medical grounds and has therefore been bidding to secure a transfer to a more suitable property. On 23 January 2022, the resident bid on a property. The landlord rejected the bid, as it believed the property was not suitable. The resident felt that he should have been allowed to view the property, take advice from an occupational therapist, and potentially accept the property, if sufficient adaptations could be made.
  4. The resident complained on 24 February 2022. He was dissatisfied that he had not been permitted to view the property he bid for. The landlord issued its stage one response on 9 March 2022 and upheld the resident’s complaint. The landlord agreed it should have allowed the resident to view the property. It offered £150 compensation.
  5. The resident remained dissatisfied and escalated his complaint to stage two of the landlord’s complaint procedure on 14 March 2022. He did not feel that the reasons given were sufficient and still wished to be considered for the property. On 12 April 2022, the landlord upheld the complaint and offered £330 compensation, in addition to an apology for the errors in process.
  6. The resident remained dissatisfied and escalated his complaint to the Ombudsman on 29 April 2022 on the grounds that he was not permitted to view the property that he bid for and that his complaints had not been responded to within the landlord’s policy timescales. Additionally, the resident had requested hard copies of the landlord’s previous complaint responses which had not been provided.

Assessment and findings

  1. The landlord uses a system to manage bids and give applicants access to bidding on other local authority and housing association properties within the local area. The landlord’s policies state that bids are prioritised by banding. Applicants with the highest priority will be invited to view the property they have placed a bid on. Similarly, applicants with the highest priority will be offered the property, unless they reject it. In that case, it will be passed to the applicant with the next highest priority.
  2. The resident was within ‘band B’ for priority when he bid for a property on 23 January 2022. The landlord’s internal correspondence throughout February 2022 showed discussions around the suitability of the property for the resident, as it did not have sufficient heating. The landlord noted that this had previously been a priority for the resident and his family due to their health needs.
  3. Rather than offering the resident an opportunity to view the property and discuss any possible adaptations, the landlord took the view that it was unsuitable and rejected the resident’s bid. In doing so, the landlord incorrectly logged the rejection, attributing it to the fact that the resident had failed to attend a viewing. This was clearly incorrect.
  4. In both its stage one and stage two responses, the landlord has acknowledged its errors. The landlord has committed to allowing the resident to view any future properties that he is eligible for, regardless of the landlord’s views on its suitability. Additionally, the landlord has corrected its records regarding non-attendance at a viewing and offered £250 compensation for these errors.
  5. Overall, whilst it is appreciated that this error in process will have been inconvenient to the resident and his family, the landlord has apologised, corrected its records, and outlined the process it will follow moving forward. It also recognised the upset caused by offering compensation. Taken together, this amounts to reasonable redress which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the element of the complaint satisfactorily.
  6. Both complaint responses were issued over the landlord’s policy timescales. The landlord’s responses at stage one and stage two were issued three days and nine days over timescale respectively. Whilst this is an unreasonable delay, the landlord apologised and offered £80 for the inconvenience caused. Given the relatively short delay in providing a response, this was reasonable and proportionate in this case.
  7. Overall, whilst it is acknowledged that there has been a delay in the complaint handling process, the apology and compensation offered by the landlord is, in this Service’s view, reasonable redress in this case which resolves this element of the complaint satisfactorily.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the landlord has offered redress to the complainant prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the resident’s complaint satisfactorily.

Orders and recommendations

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should:
    1. Pay the compensation previously offered in its stage one and stage two complaint responses in full if it has not already done so.
    2. Send the resident hard copies of its stage one and stage two complaint responses if it has not already done so.