Read our damp and mould report focusing on Awaab's Law

Notting Hill Genesis (202422116)

Back to Top

 

A blue and grey text AI-generated content may be incorrect.

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202422116

Notting Hill Genesis (NHG)

14 August 2025

 

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 reports of pests.
  2. We have also considered the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident has an assured tenancy with the landlord, which began on 26 June 2017. The landlord is a housing association. The resident lives in a 2-bedroom flat on the second floor. The resident lives with her children, which the landlord is aware of.
  2. On 25 April 2024 and 1 May 2024, the resident complained to the landlord about pests. The key points were as follows:
    1. She had been dealing with pests for years. Pest control removed 7 dead rats, some of which had been decomposing for over 2 years resulting in maggots and flies.
    2. The resident felt the landlord forced her to live in an unsanitary, unhealthy and hazardous environment. She had to throw away food contaminated by moth larvae from the dead rats, which made her and her children ill and hospitalised her and her son.
    3. She had not been able to relax in her own home and had not slept in her bedroom for months
    4. The landlord lacked compassion and empathy by failing to decant her, so she had to pay to rent elsewhere.
  3. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 1 May 2024 and issued a stage 1 complaint response on 22 May 2024. It said it could not address the pest issue due to ongoing court proceedings which was part of a disrepairs case. This included any request for compensation, which it suggested should be handled through the resident’s solicitor and the landlord’s legal disrepair representative.
  4. The resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and asked to escalate the complaint to stage 2 on 28 May 2024. She said the disrepairs case did not go to court, so her solicitor was unable to assist with compensation.
  5. The landlord acknowledged the escalation request on 29 May 2024 and issued a stage 2 response on 21 June 2024. The key points were as follows:
    1. The resident had instructed legal proceedings via an Environment Protection Act (EPA) prosecution notice. It received the notice on 22 November 2023 and closed this due to resolving pest issues on 13 February 2024. Therefore, the resident would need to agree compensation via her solicitor and its disrepair team for distress, inconvenience and suffering experienced due to pest issues.
    2. The resident could contact the Ombudsman if she remained unhappy.
  6. The resident referred her complaint to us on 6 September 2024. She told us on 6 August 2025 that she wanted:
    1. £2,000 compensation for alternative accommodation, travel and food costs.
    2. £1,000 compensation for her and her children, and for food that she had to throw away due to the infestation.
    3. The remainder of her rent arrears cleared.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. We would expect a resident to raise a formal complaint with the landlord within 12 months of an issue arising. Based on this, we have started our investigation at the earliest event we are able to evidence in the 12 months prior to the resident’s complaint. This was when the landlord requested a quote from the pest control team on 26 June 2023. This investigation considers how the landlord approached matters starting from this point, and subsequently up to its final stage 2 response on 21 June 2024.
  2. In her complaint to the landlord, the resident explained that the pest issues had affected the physical health and mental wellbeing of her and her children. While we do not dispute this, personal injury claims are more appropriate for a court because they can obtain independent medical evidence. We therefore believe it would be more appropriate and reasonable to seek a decision on this via this route. We encourage the resident to seek legal advice if she wishes to pursue a claim. We have still, nevertheless, given consideration to the general distress and inconvenience that may have been caused.
  3. The resident has advised this Service that she is seeking reimbursement to recover the wages that she lost as a result of the landlord’s handling of this complaint. In general, we would not propose a remedy of compensation to reimburse a resident for time off work or loss of wages while repairs are carried out. Although such works will inevitably cause some inconvenience to residents, their occupancy agreement will require them to give access for repairs to be carried out as needed, and it would not be fair or reasonable for us to order a landlord to reimburse loss of earnings for routine appointments. However, there may be circumstances when we decide it is appropriate to make an order that a landlord pays compensation in recognition of inconvenience caused; for example, where repairs appointments are repeatedly missed or fail to resolve the repair issue.
  4. On 6 September 2024, the resident told us that the landlord should find her a more suitable property. While we empathise with her situation, this is not an instruction we would give. This is because we would not make an order that could result in another resident potentially being disadvantaged. Without assessing the landlord’s transfer list, we are unable to know if there are other residents with greater priority than the resident in this case, and therefore whether ordering a transfer would result in a poor outcome for someone else.

Policies and procedures

  1. The Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018 requires that landlords ensure residential properties are fit for human habitation.
  2. The landlord’s pest control procedure says, due to the potential rapid spread and associated and identified health risks, it is responsible for the treatment of pests, including rats, in residents’ homes. It will arrange an inspection and any necessary works with an approved contractor.
  3. The landlord’s responsive repairs policy says it aims to complete non-emergency repairs within 20 working days. It also says residents are responsible for insuring their own contents.
  4. The landlord’s relocation (decant) policy says it may require a tenant to move when it is not safe to carry out works while they remain in their home. It will consider residents’ health, safety and wellbeing, and any vulnerabilities. It says a tenant will require a permanent move if its solicitors and/or health and safety specialists advise that this is required.
  5. The landlord’s disrepair and poor housing conditions policy says it aims to respond within 20 working days of receiving a legal claim. It says it adheres to pre-action protocol when responding to all reports. It will respond to complaints directly from residents, or a third party, in line with its complaints procedure, except where a resident instructs solicitors.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of pests

  1. The landlord does not dispute that there were failings in its handling of this matter. Where the landlord admits failings, our role is to consider whether it resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances and offered appropriate redress. In considering this, we assess whether the landlord’s actions were in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles: Be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
  2. On 26 June 2023, the landlord requested and received a quote from pest control for the treatment of rodents in the loft area of the flat. It received a further quote on 19 July 2023, which included remedial works for loft space clearance, waste clearance and sealing a bath panel. The landlord took no action upon receiving either of the quotes, which was not appropriate. It also did not record any reason for failing to take any further action, which indicates an issue with its record keeping. If work was no longer needed, we would have expected it to have discussed this with the resident.
  3. On 22 November 2023, following a gap in contact, the resident’s solicitor issued a notice of statutory nuisance under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 to the landlord due to rodents in the property impacting her health. This prompted the landlord to phone the resident on 23 November 2023 to ask if she had previously reported an infestation. The resident said she had, but the employee she had dealt with had since left. This highlights the lack of an effective system to track and monitor issues raised.
  4. Following the call, the landlord appropriately raised an urgent job with pest control, which, on 24 November 2023, provided the quotes it had previously sent. The landlord asked pest control to carry out rodent treatment and instructed another contractor to undertake the remedial works. This was reasonable in the circumstances.
  5. A contractor attended to complete remedial works including loft and waste clearance on 12 December 2023 but reported that pest control needed to visit first. Pest control attended 2 days later, but the landlord has not provided any details regarding the visit. This further indicates an issue with its record keeping.
  6. The resident phoned the landlord on 14 and 15 December 2023. She said pest control told her that the property was a health hazard, as a decomposing rat remained in the property and was giving off harmful pathogens affecting her family’s health, which she was worried about. She said her and her children were getting sick from the ‘very unpleasant smell’, which was also making her children cough more than before, and that the contractor had not completed any work. This prompted the landlord to arrange for the contractor to return to complete loft clearance on 18 December 2023. However, the landlord noted that the resident phoned in tears due to the contractor then failing to attend the rescheduled appointment, which was unsatisfactory. The contractor’s failure to complete any work and its failure to reattend no doubt caused the resident inconvenience and distress. In addition to this, the landlord gave the resident no reassurance that her family’s health was not at risk, which likely caused her further distress.
  7. Also on 18 December 2023, the landlord noted that the resident asked to be decanted due to a phobia of mice. However, there is no evidence that it considered and responded to this request at the time, which showed a lack of empathy for her situation.
  8. There is also no evidence that the landlord pursued pest control works again until 25 January 2024. This was prompted by the resident contacting it the day before. It is unreasonable that the landlord did not follow this up sooner. This, again, highlights the lack of an effective system to track and monitor repairs.
  9. Pest control visited the property on 6 February 2024, during which it reported evidence of rats in the corners of the loft and laid 5 traps throughout the loft space. When it returned on 13 February 2024 and 18 March 2024, it found no active pests and no sign of new activity. Therefore, it removed the traps. It was reasonable for the landlord to assume that the issue had subsided.
  10. In her stage 1 complaint on 1 May 2024, the resident said she reported hearing buzzing in her bedroom at night and asked the landlord to investigate, but it found nothing after making her feel crazy. She said the buzzing was flies from the maggots that were eating dead rats in the property and appeared when the windows had been closed, with more flies appearing after she let those out. The resident said she begged to be decanted as her health deteriorated and both her and her son were rushed to hospital with similar symptoms, including headaches, within a month of each other. The resident said she picked moth larvae from the kitchen ceiling and walls for months. She said the larvae came from the dead rats and contaminated food in the cupboards, having eaten the rats’ hair and skin, which caused her and her children to keep getting stomach bugs including diarrhoea and meant she had to throw food away on numerous occasions. Although the resident reported the severe impact on her and her children, there is no evidence that the landlord considered whether it could have previously provided any further support.
  11. The landlord’s stage 2 response on 21 June 2024 said it had resolved the rodent issue after completing 2 treatments following which there was no further sign of pests. However, it did not consider offering compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused despite the failings we have identified. This was inappropriate.
  12. The resident said she rented alternative accommodation because the living situation was so bad due to the rodent issue. She has requested compensation for the cost of alternative accommodation, associated travel and food. She has also asked that the landlord clears rent arrears that accrued due to living in alternative accommodation. We recognise that the resident considers the landlord responsible for such costs due to not dealing with the pest issue sooner. The landlord’s relocation policy says it will pay all reasonable expenses agreed in advance where it requires a tenant to temporarily relocate. However, the landlord makes the final decision regarding whether to relocate a resident. Had the landlord agreed to provide alternative accommodation, the resident would have remained responsible to pay the rent for their property. In this case, there was no agreement in place. Therefore, it is not appropriate for us to require that the landlord compensates the resident for such costs.
  13. The resident has requested compensation for her and her children, and for food that she had to throw away. Our awards of compensation are not intended to be punitive and we do not offer damages in the way that a court might. In assessing an appropriate level of compensation, we consider a range of factors including distress and inconvenience caused, the amount of time and effort spent pursuing the matter and the level of detriment caused by the landlord’s handling of the issue. Furthermore, our awards are generally moderate, taking into account the landlord’s need to make the most effective use of its limited resources as a social landlord for the benefit of all its residents. Also, although we recognise that the resident felt the landlord was responsible for loss of food due to pests, we are unable to determine the cause or extent of this, which would be better suited to an insurance claim or a court.
  14. Overall, the landlord’s failure to act when it received 2 separate quotes from pest control led the resident to instruct a solicitor. It then took a further 3 months before pest control reported no new signs of rodents. This was 7 months from when the landlord initially requested a quote from pest control, which far exceeded its timeframe for routine repairs. This is a significant failing that no doubt caused the resident distress and inconvenience over a prolonged period. The landlord’s failings constitute maladministration, and an order has been made for remedy.

Complaint handling

  1. The resident logged formal complaints with the landlord on 25 April 2024 and 1 May 2024.
  2. In accordance with its complaints policy, the landlord should have acknowledged the complaint within 5 working days and issued a stage 1 response within a further 10 working days. If this could not be met, it should have agreed an extension of up to a further 10 working days with the resident.
  3. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 1 May 2024. It agreed an extension with the resident on 13 May 2024 and issued a stage 1 response on 22 May 2024. Therefore, it acted in line with its process.
  4. When responding to the resident’s complaint at stage 1, the landlord said it would not address the pest control issue, as this formed part of her disrepair claim. This was not a reasonable approach for it to take. This is because a Claim Form and Particulars of Claim had not been filed with the court. As such, legal proceedings, as defined in our Complaint Handling Code, had not commenced. Not providing a response to this matter would have understandably caused distress and upset to the resident.
  5. In accordance with its complaints policy, the landlord should have acknowledged the escalation within 5 working days and issued a stage 2 response within 20 working days. If this could not be met, it should have agreed an extension of up to a further 20 working days with the resident.
  6. The resident asked to escalate her complaint to stage 2 on 28 May 2024. The landlord issued a stage 2 acknowledgement on 29 May 2024 and a stage 2 response on 21 June 2024, which was in line with its process.
  7. The landlord’s stage 2 response said it had correctly explained why it could not respond to the pest control issue as part of its complaints process but then set out its position regarding this. Although it suggested that it had undertaken an appropriate investigation and provided an update regarding the resident’s disrepair claim, the landlord should have provided a more detailed response to address all the issues raised. This should have included that the resident had experienced a recurring pest issue that she did not believe it had taken seriously or been proactive in addressing. The resident felt that the landlord had forced her to live in unsanitary conditions, her family’s health had deteriorated, and she did not understand why the landlord did not move her. She said she was seeking accountability. However, the landlord did not address this, which was not appropriate.
  8. The landlord said it had completed 2 pest control treatments and then found no further evidence of pest activity. However, this does not demonstrate any accountability for how long this took from when the resident first raised the issue, the resident’s experience during that time, or what it could have done better. Instead of considering how it could put this right, the landlord referred the resident back to her solicitor to liaise with its paralegal team. This meant it denied her the chance of resolution under its complaints process, which was not reasonable. The landlord’s complaint handling failings represent maladministration, for which we have made an order for remedy.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration regarding the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of pests.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration regarding the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must provide us with evidence that it has:
    1. Issued a written apology for the distress caused by the failings identified.
    2. Paid compensation totalling £750, comprised as follows:
      1. £600 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the failings identified regarding its handling of reports of pests.
      2. £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling failures.
  2. The landlord must make this payment directly to the resident.