Notting Hill Genesis (NHG) (202201557)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202201557

Notting Hill Genesis

30 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

The complaint is about;
1. The landlord’s handling of an emergency property transfer and the resident’s access to temporary accommodation due to a serious incident of gang-related violence.
2. The landlord’s complaint handling approaches and the level of redress offered to the resident.

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.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42(f) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspect of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
This Service cannot make determinations on health implications caused by a landlord’s actions or inactions. Such matters should be considered by the courts. Whilst the resident has stated to the landlord and to this Service that her health and the health of her family has been affected, it does not form part of the determination in this case. The resident may wish to pursue this element of her case through a personal injury claim if she has not done so already.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord which is a housing association. The resident has an adult child and two teenage children. This report focusses on the actions taken by the landlord during the resident’s occupation of her previous property, which was a two-bedroom apartment within a block, which is referred to in this report as “the property”. The landlord has confirmed that the resident and her family moved from the property to another of its properties in September 2021.
The landlord’s records show that there are no vulnerabilities for the resident, or her family recorded on its systems.

Scope of investigation

The resident has stated that she and her family had experienced gang-related incidents for a number of years. The resident did not raise her earlier concerns with the landlord within a reasonable timeframe. Therefore, this investigation covers the period from August 2020 to February 2022.
The landlord’s records show that it had previous historic dealings with the resident and her family due to involvement in anti-social behaviour (ASB), criminal behaviour and gang activity.

Summary of events

On 18 August 2020, the landlord submitted an information request to the local police force following concerns raised regarding the safety of the resident and her family at the property. The landlord’s records show that it did not receive a response to its request for several months.
The landlord made a further information request to the local police force on 27 November 2020, in relation to a rehousing request made to it by the resident.
On 17 December 2020, the landlord received an email from the police in which it was stated that officers had met with the resident and her son in June 2020. This was in relation to her son being a victim of a serious gang-related incident. The police information stated that the resident’s son did not wish to give any further details of the incident to them. The police also confirmed that the resident’s social worker had initially contacted them due to their concerns.
The landlord contacted the resident’s social worker and the local authority’s homelessness team via email on 19 March 2021. It stated that it does not offer emergency accommodation for residents who are fleeing their properties due to threats of violence. It further stated that if it was to agree a permanent property transfer with the resident to another of its properties, this could take some time.
On 30 March 2021, the landlord received an email from the local authority which confirmed that temporary accommodation was available for the resident should she wish to access it.
The landlord received an email from the local authority’s housing assessment team on 8 April 2021. The email stated that the local authority did not have any supporting evidence from the resident, and it was therefore closing her rehousing application. The email further outlined the local authority’s position in that they had assessed that the resident and her family were safe at the property. It further confirmed that information received from the local police made no reference to the resident’s son being involved in gang activity.
On 23 April 2021, the landlord completed a property transfer request form on the resident’s behalf and stated within the form that her son was not willing to report any incidents to the police. It further confirmed that it had a previously declined a property transfer request for the resident due to a lack of supporting evidence and arrears on her rent account. The request outlined that the resident required a three- or four-bedroom house.
Also on 23 April 2021, the landlord approved the resident’s access to the homeswapper website to provide options to her relating to mutual exchange. The landlord approved this despite the arrears on her rent account.
The landlord attended a multi-agency strategy meeting with its partners on 2 June 2021. The partners present included the police, the local authority, and social workers amongst others. The meeting was held in response to a serious incident on 29 May 2021, involving the resident’s son who had been shot at by unknown persons on a motorcycle in the local area. Notes from the meeting state the following:
1. The resident’s son had not disclosed any detailed information about the incident.
2. A firearms recovery dog had located a spent shell casing at the location and further investigations were being carried out by the police. It was believed that five shots had been fired.
3. The police stated that they believed the incident was caused by a rival gang to a gang which the resident’s son was linked.
4. It was confirmed that the local authority was not able to offer temporary accommodation over the weekend on which the incident had occurred due to the size of the property required. The local authority did however confirm that a suitable property outside of the area was available for the family that same day.
5. The landlord stated that it had previous difficulty in offering the resident a transfer to another property due to a lack of supporting evidence. It stated that in light of this incident and information provided by its partner’s, the resident and her family would be given band A priority for a transfer. It also outlined that the type of property required out of the area could take some time to become available.
6. The landlord also stated that should the resident accept the local authority’s offer of temporary accommodation; this would likely assist her in obtaining a permanent transfer to another of its properties out of the area.
7. A section 47 safeguarding referral under the 1989 Children’s Act would be completed by the social worker due to the significant concerns raised.
Within internal emails between the landlord’s staff on 10 June 2021, it was confirmed that the resident could be moved elsewhere urgently. The landlord listed areas where the resident could not move to which was based on the advice from its partners. The resident’s band A priority relating to her property transfer request was agreed by two of the landlord’s senior managers.
The landlord attended a further multi-agency strategy meeting with its partners on 15 June 2021. Following this meeting it also received supporting written evidence from the resident’s social worker regarding the resident’s urgent property transfer request. It is understood that the resident accepted the local authority’s offer of temporary accommodation at this time.
On 8 September 2021, the landlord offered a suitable property to the resident out of the area, and it is confirmed that the resident moved to her new property on 20 September 2021.
On 6 October 2021, the resident made a formal complaint to the landlord via an advocate on her behalf. Her complaint outlined the following:
1. The resident felt ignored and that the landlord showed a lack of concern with regards to her concerns for her safety and the safety of her family at the property.
2. The resident felt that the landlord did not listen to her concerns despite her informing it of the issues of gang violence and the risks to her and her family.
3. The resident’s advocate stated that it was extremely difficult to encourage victims to engage with the police and that the landlord left the resident in an extremely difficult position.
4. The resident and her family were all suffering extreme stress and anxiety and the resident was now taking medication for anxiety and depression and was concerned about the long-term impacts on her children.
5. It was appreciated that the landlord had now moved the resident and her family to a new property out of the area. However, concerns were raised that the landlord did not rehouse the family sooner.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 7 October 2021 and assigned it to an officer in the area which she had recently moved to. It confirmed that it would provide its stage one complaint response within 10 working days.
On 25 October 2021, the landlord reassigned the resident’s complaint to a manager who covered the area in which she had recently moved to. The resident’s complaint was reassigned again the following day to a floating housing officer to formally investigate and respond.
The landlord provided the resident with its stage one complaint response on 29 November 2021 in which it stated:
1. It apologised for the delay in providing its response. It stated that it had needed to investigate her complaint but the officer completing the response had been on sickness leave.
2. It offered the resident £100 in compensation in relation to its delays in providing its response.
3. It stated that the police did not initially provide it with information requested relating to the resident’s concerns for the safety of her family.
4. It stated that it had been in frequent contact with its partners including the police, social services, and the local authority regarding her request for an urgent property transfer.
5. It stated that it did not provide emergency accommodation as this was a statutory duty of the local authority.
6. It confirmed that once it had received supporting evidence from its partners around the level of risk posed to her and her family, it increased her rehousing priority to the highest level it could offer. This was completed on 10 June 2021. It stated that its staff had correctly followed its lettings and allocations policy and procedures.
7. It stated it had a full understanding of the difficulties involved in dealing with incidents of gang violence and it would review how it deals with such matters in the future.
8. It provided details of its stage two complaints process should the resident be dissatisfied with its stage one response.
On 21 December 2021, the resident’s advocate sent a letter to the landlord outlining the reasons for the resident’s dissatisfaction with its stage one complaint response:
1. The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s delay in issuing its stage one complaint response to her.
2. The resident stated that she reported her concerns for the safety of her family in June 2020, but the landlord didn’t take any action until May 2021 when her son was shot at.
3. The resident felt that the landlord’s approach to gang violence was poor and needed to be improved.
4. The landlord had never spoken to her children about their concerns.
5. The landlord didn’t keep the resident updated on her case and had to chase it with support from other agencies.
6. The resident stated it was not clear who she should contact regarding her rehousing request and the landlord’s communication with her was poor.
7. The landlord only facilitated a property transfer following her son being shot at. This is despite the resident previously informing it that her family were at risk.
8. The landlord had previously blocked the resident’s attempts to move to another property.
9. The resident did not believe that the landlord’s stage one complaint response offer of compensation reflected the impact on the health and wellbeing of her and her family and it had shown little compassion to the resident.
10. The resident requested that the landlord escalated her complaint to stage two of its complaints process.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage two complaint request on 10 January 2022 and stated that it would provide its response by 7 February 2022. It called the resident that same day to discuss the reasons for her dissatisfaction with its stage one complaint response.
On 26 January 2022, the landlord sent an email to the resident to advise that due to operational demands and staffing issues, it may require further time to provide its stage two complaint response. It was also noted that the resident had chosen for the landlord to carry out its independent review process at stage two of her complaint. This involved reviews of the complaint and associated case being carried out by a senior manager and a member of its resident’s panel.
On 2 February 2022, the resident review element of the stage two complaint was completed. The reviewer stated that they felt the landlord had worked well on the case and that it had acted appropriately based on the evidence it had received.
On 3 February 2022, the landlord completed the independent manager review element of its stage two response. This was completed by a manager not connected to the resident’s case. The review found that the landlord’s complaint handling approaches at stage one had not been in line with its policy and procedures, but it felt that it had handled the associated issues within the case appropriately.
The landlord provided the resident with its stage two complaint response on 8 February 2022, one day later than it had earlier advised. The response outlined the following:
1. It had worked closely with its partners around the safeguarding elements of her case. It stated that whilst its officers followed its safeguarding policy, it was not the best placed agency to advise or support children and young people.
2. It stated that it had acted appropriately regarding her request for an urgent move before the shooting incident occurred. It had liaised with its partners who had informed it that they believed at that stage the resident and her family were not at risk and could remain at the property.
3. It had advised the resident to speak to the police about her concerns, yet she had not done this, and it did not receive any information at that time to support her request for an urgent move.
4. Following the shooting incident, it attended a multi-agency strategy meeting and based on information provided by its partners, it quickly granted the resident the highest priority rehousing banding. The local authority had provided temporary accommodation at that time.
5. It explained that previous rehousing requests in 2017 from the resident were declined due to rent arrears and concerns about her son’s behaviour. It acted in line with its policies and did not approve her application on the local rehousing systems. It did however approve her entry onto the system in April 2021 following her contacting it about her concerns for safety and it had waived the requirement for a clear rent account to enable her to seek a mutual exchange.
6. It admitted its failings and delays in issuing its stage one complaint response to the resident. It confirmed that it provided the response 38 days late and explained that staff absence was the main reason for the delay. It had offered the resident £100 in compensation to reflect its failings and apologised to the resident.
7. It further admitted that it had provided its stage two complaint response one day later than advised and offered a further £50 in compensation.
8. It stated that it had not received any contact from the resident in June 2020 where she raised her concerns about gang activity. It advised that it had checked its records and the only contact around that time was related to the resident requesting a new security chain on her front door. It stated that its officers called the resident back and left a voicemail.
9. It stated that the advice it would give to resident’s on rehousing depends on their individual circumstances. It stated that the approach by the resident in applying for a property transfer with it and contacting the local authority to request a move was correct. It also stated that its partners and charities may be best placed to offer specialist advice. It apologised to the resident if any of the advice given to her was confusing.
10. It stated that it cared about its resident’s, and it acted quickly to assist her in obtaining a new property following the serious incident in May 2021.

Post complaints process

The landlord has provided this Service with details of areas of learning it had identified from this case:
1. When its resident’s request assistance in moving due to concerns for their children, it should consider the child’s welfare and ensure that the focus is not solely on aspects of their behaviour which could be a breach of tenancy.
2. When such issues exist, it should give consideration to allowing mutual exchange and a property transfer whilst ensuring that an agreement is in place to clear rent arrears.
3. It should have informed the resident that it understands her family had suffered serious challenges as a result of her son’s behaviour. Also, it should have made it clear that it empathised with those challenges and the effects it had on her family.
4. Its staff should also discuss with its residents the help and support that may be available from children’s services. Should any risk of harm to a child be identified, its staff should request consent to make a safeguarding referral. If consent is declined, its staff should explain that where residents feel there is a risk of harm, its staff are obliged to make the referral, even without parental consent.
5. It would assure its residents that it would continue to encourage its staff to offer support and signpost to partners and agencies that can help. It should seek to always consider history and past incidents together with present circumstances, but it would always need to be able to evidence current risk in order to inform its decisions around offering a management/urgent property transfer.
6. It would be beneficial for it and its partners to meet with the resident and for it to share its finding, recommendations and learning with her.

Assessment and findings

The Ombudsman’s Dispute resolution principles are to:
1. Be fair.
2. Put things right.
3. Learn from outcomes.

This Service will apply these principles when considering whether any redress is appropriate and proportionate for any maladministration or service failure identified.

The landlord’s obligations

The landlord’s ASB policy outlines how it will tackle ASB in its communities. It also outlines that it will adopt a multi-agency approach to preventing and tackling ASB. It will work at both strategic and local levels with relevant partners to achieve this.
Its lettings and allocations policy outlines the following.
1. It details the criteria in which it will apply the highest level of priority banding (band A) to residents seeking rehousing within its own housing stock. In relation to this case, the criteria of “faces imminent personal risk which is life-threatening by remaining in their home.”
2. It outlines that it will make one direct band A management transfer to residents on a like-for-like basis in relation to the type of property. It will however consider offering larger properties when overcrowding is an issue and where it has availabilities of such properties.
3. It is committed to working with local authorities in order to assist them with their statutory duties in relation homelessness and those in priority need.
4. It also outlines provisions for reciprocal agreements with other social landlords where it does not have available properties suitable for resident’s needs. It will contact other landlords to determine if they have a suitable property available and will “owe” the other landlord a property in return. This area of the policy specifically refers to it being available to young people threatened by gang violence or coercion and anyone fleeing domestic violence.
The landlord’s transfers procedure sets out guidelines for its staff when dealing with transfers within its own housing stock. It confirms the following:
1. Residents with rent arrears are permitted to register for a transfer when granted band A priority.
2. It also outlines that management transfers must be given a band A or B priority and also that the resident must provide supporting information from a relevant source, e.g., police reports.
3. Two managers must then agree to the granting of band A priority and direct property offers.
4. It further outlines that if a resident has been awarded band A priority, its staff should inform them that they will have six months to bid for a property and that, in the meantime, it will look for a suitable property and try to make a direct offer.
5. It details that direct offers will be made with band A priority and where there is an urgent need to move a resident elsewhere.
Its complaints and compliments policy outlines two-stage complaints process It states that it will provide a formal written response at stage one within 10 working days. At stage two (review) of the complaints process, at least one independent manager will review the complaint before responding and it also offers residents the opportunity to have their complaint reviewed by an independent reviewer from a pool of residents. It will provide a stage two response within 20 working days.
The landlord’s compensation and goodwill gestures policy confirm that it will offer compensation payments where it has failed to deliver the standards it expects. It will make discretionary payments up to £250 where its service failures have caused inconvenience, distress, or hardship. It also states that circumstances such as where there have been multiple service failures, or exceptional hardship, it may offer higher levels of compensation if agreed by a senior manager.
The landlord’s safeguarding children and young person’s policy and its safeguarding adult’s procedure outlines its commitments to safeguarding its residents. Both policies outline that it will work with relevant partners and agencies and share information in order to minimise risk. It states that all staff should access training to be able to recognise safeguarding issues and to raise their concerns appropriately.

The landlord’s handling of an emergency property transfer and the resident’s access to temporary accommodation due to a serious incident of gang-related violence.

Prior to the serious incident involving the resident’s son on 29 May 2021, the landlord had followed its own allocations and lettings policy by requesting evidence from the resident to support her property transfer request. Landlord’s can only act on the evidence they receive; however, it is noted that the resident felt extremely afraid for her safety and the safety of her family due to the risks posed to them during this time, and that this was a reason why she did not wish to speak with the police. This Service finds that the landlord acted in line with its policy in this regard.
The landlord’s allocations policy shows that it has a reciprocal agreement in place with other landlord’s in which it can assist residents in moving due to gang violence. However, it is not possible for the landlord to be able to confirm that a suitable property with another landlord would be available at very short notice. Also, the resident would need to already have band A priority in place. Therefore, this option was not available for the resident at very short notice following the serious incident involving her son on 29 May 2021.
Once the landlord was made aware of the serious incident, it sought supporting evidence from its relevant partners and attended a strategy meeting at short notice. This was an appropriate step and assisted it in its decision making. This Service finds that the landlord acted quickly in granting the resident band A priority as soon as it was aware of the serious incident. As is highlighted in the resident’s request for the landlord to escalate her complaint to stage two of its complaints process, the landlord is not to blame for the serious incident which occurred with the resident’s son. Whilst landlords can to some degree try to prevent incidents through early intervention, they more often have to react to incidents once they have occurred.
The landlord sought supporting information from its partners when the resident reported her concerns to it. As the resident did not engage with the landlord or other agencies that she was aware of, the landlord itself took reasonable steps to actively engage with relevant partners who were better placed to manage, investigate and resolve incidents of a serious gang-related nature.
As soon as a suitable property became available out of the area, the landlord offered it to the resident who accepted, and she moved out of the temporary accommodation provided by the local authority. This Service finds that the landlord acted appropriately by offering a suitable property to the resident as soon as one became available.
The landlord could have considered waiving the requirement for the resident to have a clear rent account before it allowed her to access the rehousing system as this may have enabled the resident to move sooner. Despite this, the landlord had little supporting information and evidence from the resident prior to the serious incident. This Service therefore finds that it acted in accordance with its policy and procedure, but that it was prepared to step outside of its policy position and apply discretion around the resident’s rent arrears by allowing her to access the mutual exchange system in April 2022. This was a reasonable step by the landlord given the information it had at that time.
The landlord identified from its own review of the resident’s case a number of areas for improvement. This Service finds that this was a very positive step and shows that it sought to learn from its handling of the resident’s case and to improve services for its customers in the future. The landlord took appropriate and swift actions once it had received information and evidence from its partners, whilst giving consideration to the resident’s rehousing request. This Service therefore finds that there was no maladministration by the landlord in this regard.

Complaint handling

The landlord admitted its delays in providing the resident with its stage one complaint response. It confirmed that it was 28 working days late in issuing its response and its policy states that it should issue stage one responses within 10 working days.
There were also delays in the landlord issuing its stage two complaint response to the resident. Whilst the landlord did acknowledge this in its complaint responses by stating that it was 1 working day late in providing its response, this was incorrect as the resident had requested an escalation to stage two of the complaints process on 21 December 2021. As she received the stage two response on 8 February 2022, this was 33 working days following the resident’s stage two complaint request. This falls outside of the 20-working day response time outlined in the landlord’s complaints and compliments policy.
Whilst the landlord acknowledges and apologise for its delays in providing its complaints responses and offered a total of £150 compensation to the resident, this Service finds that this amount does not accurately reflect its failings. The landlord twice missed the opportunity to resolve the resident’s complaint at the earliest stage.
The landlord’s delayed complaint responses fell short of its own timescales listed within its complaints and compliments policy. Paragraph 4.1 of this Service’s complaint handling code encourages the early resolution of issues between landlords and residents.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of an emergency property transfer and the resident’s access to temporary accommodation due to a serious incident of gang-related violence.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint and the level of redress offered.

Reasons

The landlord followed its own policies and procedures in relation to the resident’s rehousing request however it was also willing to step outside of its allocations policy position to allow the resident to register for mutual exchange despite having rent arrears. It acted appropriately and urgently when it became aware of the serious incident involving the resident’s son and was able to offer her a permanent transfer to another property outside the area. This safeguarded the resident and her family from further gang violence. It worked closely with its partners and shared information which was in the best interests of the resident and her family.
It identified areas of learning from the resident’s case in order to try and deliver a better service for its customers in the future.
The landlord did not correctly follow its complaints policy and procedures and both its complaint responses fell outside of the timescales in its policy. Whilst it did acknowledge and apologise for its failings and made an offer of financial redress to the resident, this offer did not fully reflect the delays she experienced during the complaints process.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is to:
1. Pay the resident £150 in recognition of its complaint handling failures as offered in its stage two complaint response.
2. An additional £100 in recognition of its further delays in providing the resident with its stage two response.

Recommendations

If it has not done so already, the landlord is to arrange a meeting with the resident and discuss the learning points it had identified from its review of her case.
If it has not done so already, the landlord is to implement the learning points it had identified from its review of the resident’s case into its relevant policies and procedures.